Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV37624, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV37624    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

MICHAEL MORRIS, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 20STCV37624 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S OMNIBUS MOTIONS TO COMPEL 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

March 4, 2024 

 

I. Motion to Compel 

Plaintiff Michael Morris ("Plaintiff”) propounded set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents, on defendant County of Los Angeles (“County”) on May 26, 2022. The responses were due on June 26, 2022. On September 26, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter requesting responses. However, as of the motion filing date, Plaintiff has not received any responses. Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling the County to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions. 

The County opposes the motion, arguing it served verified responses to all the outstanding discovery on November 17, 2023. Plaintiff, on reply, concedes responses were served, and argues only the imposition of monetary sanctions. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the motion to compel moot in light of the responses served on Plaintiff prior to the hearing. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.) 

The only remaining issue is sanctions.  

 

II. Sanctions 

The County argues it served late responses because it communicated to Plaintiff that it does not have jurisdiction over the Van Nuys Courthouse, which was the location of Plaintiff’s fall. The County contends it believed the discovery was moot after requesting Plaintiff to dismiss the action against it.  

Here, the County’s belief that it is not obligated to respond to discovery is not reasonable. Until the County is actually dismissed from Plaintiff’s either complaint, either voluntarily by Plaintiff or the County obtains dismissal by way of a dispositive motion, the County remains a party to the matter and must fulfill all discovery obligations in a timely manner.  

Plaintiff requests $3,368.40 in monetary sanctions against Defendant. 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).) 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.) The Court will award monetary sanctions, but at a reduced rate.      

Plaintiff is awarded 1 hour for the motion to compel, and 1 hour to appear at the hearing, at a reduced rate of $250 per hour, for a total $500 as attorney’s fees. Further, Plaintiff is awarded one motion filing fee of $68.40, as costs.  

Sanctions are imposed against the County and the County’s attorney of record, jointly and severally.  The County and/or its counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $568.40, within twenty (20) days of the final ruling. 

 

III. Additional Filing Fees 

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a single motion for what should have been three separate motions as to the motions to compel form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production. Combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to pay two additional filing fees. This ruling will be final upon proof of payment of the filing fees. 

 

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.¿ 

 

Dated this 1st day of March 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court