Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00757, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV00757 Hearing Date: January 9, 2024 Dept: A
22CMCV00757 Iris Bonilla Guzman v.
Alejandro Zapata Jr., et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
This
action arises from an automobile accident that occurred on December 7, 2021.
Defendant, Alejandro Zapata, Jr., while driving a vehicle owned by Defendant,
Home Express Delivery Service, LLC, struck Plaintiff’s vehicle.
Plaintiff
served form interrogatories and requests for production of documents on
Defendant on April 4, 2023. Plaintiff gave Defendant until September 25, 2023, to
respond after permitting over seven weeks of extensions to respond. Plaintiff
sent a meet and confer letter to defense counsel on October 27, 2023, to which defense
counsel did not respond.
In
opposition, defense counsel states that in July 2023, he retained an
investigator to locate Zapata but has not been successful, and all efforts have
been exhausted. Responses cannot be served on Zapata’s behalf without
reasonable diligence. Defense counsel will move to intervene on behalf of the
insurance carried because of Zapata’s unavailability. Sanctions against defense
counsel are unwarranted as counsel acted diligently.
In
reply, Plaintiff argues that it has been one year since Plaintiff propounded
discovery. Trial is set for May 1, 2024, with discovery cutoff looming in April
2004. Defendants continue to contest liability. Plaintiff is entitled to
discover that evidence. Defendant’s lack of response is prejudicial to
Plaintiff. Monetary sanctions should be imposed against Mr. Zapata.
III. DISCUSSION
Where a
party fails to timely respond to interrogatories and a document request, the
court has authority to compel a response. (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.290 subd. (b),
§2031.300 subd. (b).) Untimely responses result in a waiver of objections.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 subd. (a), §2031.300 subd. (a). As Defendant
Zapata has not served any responses, all objections are waived.
Although
Plaintiff has provided lengthy extensions of time to respond, Defendant Zapata
has not provided responses after seven months. An answer was filed on Zapata’s
behalf on March 31, 2023. Plaintiff is
entitled to discovery responses unless clearly prohibited by statute or public
policy. (Emerson
Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1107.) As a
party, Defendant is statutorily obligated to respond in writing, under oath,
and within the statutory time limits. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.)
Imposition
of sanctions against Mr. Zapata is warranted. There is insufficient evidence showing substantial
justification for failing to adhere to his discovery obligations. (Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 2030.310, 2031.310.) The Court
finds that $350 per hour is a reasonable fee and a total of three hours to
prepare both motions and the reply and one hour to appear is reasonable under
the circumstances. Plaintiff incurred costs of $120 ($60 per motion) in filing
fees. Total sanctions are $350 x 4 = $1,400 + costs of $120).
IV. CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS