Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV03152, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03152    Hearing Date: May 24, 2023    Dept: 31

TENTATIVE

Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant JOY 2001, Inc. to server verified responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two is GRANTED.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $750.00 for 1.5 hours of work.

Legal Standard

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.010, 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280; 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).)¿ Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.¿ (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

¿If a propounding party moves for and obtains a court order compelling a response, the court shall impose monetary sanctions against the party failing to timely respond to interrogatories and demands for inspection unless that party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (CCP §§ 2030.010, 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.28;¿Sinaiko¿Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.)¿¿¿ 

Discussion

Motion to Compel RPD

On September 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs served a Request for Production of Documents, Set Two (“RPD”) of Defendant Joy 2001 Inc.’s counsel or record.

Plaintiff asserts that to date, Defendant JOY has failed to serve responses, timely return any communication to Plaintiffs’ counsel, or otherwise engage in discovery. (Diaz Decl. ¶ 3.) Notice of this Motion was properly served on January 12, 2023, to JOY’s counsel of record Jonathan P. Fly yet no opposition papers were filed nor was the requested discovery produced.

Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED.

Request for Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel.¿¿(Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c),¿2030.300, subd. (d),¿2031.300, subd. (c),¿and 2031.310, subd. (h).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”¿(Id.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant JOY in the amount of $2000.00, as articulated in the body of the notice of motion. Thus, Defendant JOY has adequate notice that sanctions are sought against it. (See Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1434.) Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that his hourly rate is $500.00 per hour. (Diaz Decl. ¶ 4.) Counsel spent 2.0 hours conferring with Defendant’s counsel and preparing this motion and anticipates spending an additional 2.0 hours on this Motion. (Id.)

The Court finds the amount of sanctions requested is excessive given that the Motion is not complex and no opposition or reply was filed. Moreover, it is unclear how the additional 2.0 hours will be spent.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $750.00 for 1.5 hours of work.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant JOY 2001, Inc. to server verified responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two is GRANTED.  Responses should be served within 15 days of this order.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $750.00 for 1.5 hours of work, due within 30 days.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.