Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV00587, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV00587 Hearing Date: April 23, 2024 Dept: A
Case Number: 20CMCV00587 Hearing Date: April 23, 0024 Dept: A
20CMCV00587 Blanca Estela Hernandez Hernandez v. Mayra Paloma Garcia Vela, Ruben Garcia Rodriguez
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART (AS TO SANCTION REQUEST ONLY) PLAINTIFF’S TWO (2) MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT, MAYRA PALOMA GARCIA VELA TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART (AS TO SANCTION REQUEST ONLY) PLAINTIFF’S THREE (3) MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT, RUBEN GARCIA RODRIGUEZ, TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2024
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART (AS TO SANCTION REQUEST ONLY) PLAINTIFF’S TWO (2) MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT, MAYRA PALOMA GARCIA VELA, TO REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR AN ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED ALL REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART (AS TO SANCTION REQUEST ONLY) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED ALL REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION PROPOUNDED ON RUBEN GARCIA RODRIGUEZ; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
I. BACKGROUND
This action arises from injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident involving Defendants. On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff served initial written discovery on each Defendant consisting of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for production of documents, and requests for admission. Plaintiff argues that numerous extensions to respond were given to Defendants at their request, through February 9, 2024. Defendants failed to respond.
In opposition, Defendants argue that the motions are moot since Defendants served verified responses on April 12, 2024. The delay was caused by prior defense counsel and paralegal leaving the firm. The request for sanctions incurred for preparing four motions for each Defendant is excessive since these motions are routine and identical.
In reply, Plaintiff argues that imposition of sanctions is warranted as Defendants served responses after Plaintiff had incurred fees and costs to prepare these motions.
II. DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff has scheduled four essentially identical discovery motions against each defendant over the course of two days (April 23 and 25, 2024.) All eight motions are fully briefed. In the interest of expediency, the Court is inclined to hear the April 25 motions on this date. Accordingly, this ruling will address all eight pending motions.
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).) The parties do not dispute that each Defendant has served verified responses without objections to the form and special interrogatories and document request. Therefore, an order compelling their response is no longer necessary.
Where a party fails to respond to requests for admission, the court can deem the requests admitted against the non-responding party unless it finds that the non-responding party has subsequently served, before the hearing, a proposed response to the requests that substantially complies with statutory requirements. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd., (c).) Imposition of sanctions is mandatory where a party’s failure to respond to the requests necessitates the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd., (c).) Each Defendants have since served a response prior to the hearing, therefore, an order deeming matters admitted is DENIED.
However, Plaintiff is entitled to the imposition of sanctions against both defendants and their counsel for the failure to justify the eight-month delay in serving responses. The Court reduces Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for $850 per hour as it is excessive given the motions are identical in large part and do not involve complex matters. The Court finds $250 per hour is a reasonable rate. The Court finds that one hour to prepare each motion and reply brief is reasonable, for a total of $1,000 in sanctions against each Defendant ($250 x 4 motions per defendant).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons the Court GRANTS all eight motions in part, only as to sanctions. Defendant, MAYRA PALOMA GARCIA VELA, and counsel, Martinez, Dietrich, & Zarcone Legal Group, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay Plaintiff $1,000 in fees incurred for all four motions within 10 days. Defendant, RUBEN GARCIA RODRIGUEZ, and counsel, Martinez, Dietrich, & Zarcone Legal Group, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay Plaintiff $1,000 in fees incurred for all four motions within 10 days.