SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA   FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT    JACOB MCGEE and ZHONTILE REDDICK,  Plaintiff(s),   vs.    JULIEN BRUNET, ET AL.,    Defendant(s).  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )        CASE NO: 20STCV28649    [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: GRANTING MOTIONS TO COMPEL         Dept. 31  1:30 p.m.   February 8, 2024   Bottom of Form

I. Motions to Compel

Defendant Julien Brunet ("Defendant”) propounded (1) form interrogatories, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, on Plaintiff Jacob McGee (“Plaintiff McGee”) on November 28, 2022. Responses were due on or before December 30, 2022. On December 28, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, set to be heard on February 2, 2023. The parties agreed to an extension for discovery responses to be due no later than 35 days after the hearing to be relieved as counsel. On February 2, 2023, the Court granted the motion, and on February 7, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed the Notice of Ruling granting the motion to be relieved as counsel. Defense counsel mailed letters to Plaintiff McGee informing him of the deadline for discovery responses. To date, Plaintiff McGee has not served responses. Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff McGee to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.

Plaintiffs in pro per have been served with the moving papers. The motions are unopposed.

For a motion to compel initial discovery responses, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom

the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 906.) Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Therefore, because the evidence shows Plaintiff McGee was properly served with discovery and failed to respond, Defendant’s unopposed motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff McGee is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and RPDs, set one, without objections, within thirty (30) days. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).)

II. Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response, unless a court makes certain findings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) Plaintiff McGee did not file any opposition. However, sanctions may be awarded, even though no opposition was filed, pursuant to CRC 3.1348(a). Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,045 for each motion to compel.

A court has discretion to award sanctions that are “suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks” but they should not be punitive in nature or levied for the purposes of punishing an offending party. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.)

In consideration of Plaintiff McGee’s status in propria, the Court will award reduced sanctions. Defendant is awarded $190 in attorney fees for each motion, for a total of $570 as attorney’s fees. Additionally, Defendant is awarded three motion filing fee of $60, for a total of $180 as costs.

Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff McGee. Plaintiff McGee is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $750, within thirty (30) days.

Moving party is ordered to give notice. 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

· Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.

· If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

· Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

· If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.