Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV01508, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CMCV01508    Hearing Date: August 20, 2024    Dept: A

23CMCV01508 Brenda Davis v. Agustin Arturo Dominguez Martinez

Tuesday, August 20, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES  TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

       The complaint alleges a negligence claim for personal injuries and property damage suffered by Plaintiff in an auto accident allegedly caused by Defendant. Defendant filed his answer on April 18, 2024.

       Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s responses to form interrogatories 15.1 and 17.1, are not substantive, not code-complaint, nonresponsive, evasive and asserts boilerplate objections. Plaintiff. Defendant did not serve further responses despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s numerous attempts to meet and confer. Plaintiff requests imposition of sanctions against Defendant.

       Plaintiff timely served the motion on Defendant on July 12, 2024, before the agreed-upon deadline of August 10, 2024 (Ng Decl., Ex. 3.). Defendant did not file an opposition by August 7, 2024, which is nine court days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005(b).

       A party can move to compel a further response to interrogatories where the party deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a).) The parties are required to meet and confer prior to making the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(b).)

       At issue are Defendant’s responses to Interrogatory 15.1 to identify facts and identify witnesses and documents to support his affirmative defenses although Defendant asserted 13 affirmative defenses. Interrogatory 17.1 requires Defendant to state facts and identify witnesses and documents to support Defendant’s denial of each request for admission served on Defendant. Defendant responded that he does not have knowledge of any facts; Defendant also failed to admit or deny any of the requests. (Plaintiff’s Sep. Stmt.)

       Plaintiff has shown good cause for further responses all of which are relevant to issues raised in Plaintiff’s complaint and Defendant’s answer. Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with Defendant on numerous occasions without success. (Ng Decl. Exs., 2-3.)

       Plaintiff is entitled to the imposition of sanctions against Defendant for costs and fees incurred to prepare this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300 subd. (d).) Defendant has not shown substantial justification for failing provide further responses.

       The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $250 is reasonable. The Court finds that two hours to prepare this motion and one hour to appear are reasonable. Plaintiff is not entitled to fees and costs for time spent to meet and confer, which is required by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300 subd.(b).) Defendant did not file an opposition, and Plaintiff did not file a reply brief.

       Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide further, verified, and code-compliant responses to form interrogatories 15.1 and 17.1 without objection within 30 days. The court imposes reduced sanctions of $750.00 ($250 x 3) against Defendant, Augustin Arturo Dominguez Martinez, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days.