Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV45945, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45945    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Adriana Dorantes (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Mohsen Hamidi Hashemi (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

On July 21, 2022, Defendant propounded written discovery requests, namely Supplemental Demand for Production, Inspection, and Copying of Documents No. 1 and Supplemental Interrogatory No. 1. At this time, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to respond without objection to each discovery request. Defendant also seeks orders imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $935.00 against Plaintiff and anyone who may oppose the motion. The motion is unopposed.

2. Motions to Compel

a. Meet and Confer

No meet and confer is required for motions to compel. (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395 fn 4, disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 977).

b. Requests for Judicial Notice

            Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice of other discovery motions pending against Plaintiff in this matter. (Zurek Decls., ¶ 4.) The Court declines to do so because the Court does not rely on those other discovery motions for its decision here.

c. Legal Authority

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, under CCP § 2030.290(b), the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (CCP § 2030.290(a).) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id. § 2030.300(d).)

When a party to whom an inspection demand is directed fails to respond under CCP § 2031.300(b), a party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. A party who fails to provide timely responses waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (CCP § 2031.300(a).) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id. § 2031.310(h).)

d. Analysis

The Court finds that Defendant has proven it is entitled to an order to compelling responses to the subject discovery requests. Defendant served the subject discovery requests on July 21, 2022, and Plaintiff failed to provide any responses. (Zurek Decls. ¶¶ 3, 4; Exs. A.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motions. The Court therefore orders that Plaintiff must provide objection-free, code-compliant, verified responses to Supplemental Demand for Inspection, Production, and Copying of Documents No. 1 and Supplemental Interrogatory No. 1 within 20 days of the date of this order.

The Court awards monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel in the reduced amount of $750.00, comprised of 1.0 hour per motion plus 1.0 hour for the hearing on the motions, for a total of 3.0 hours, multiplied by the hourly rate of $250.00. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to make payment for said monetary sanctions to counsel for Defendant within 20 days of the date of this order.

Therefore, Defendant’s motions to compel responses are GRANTED and the requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED as stated above.

Defendant 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 23^rd day of May, 2023