Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV32736, Date: 2024-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32736    Hearing Date: April 18, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

WILMA RIVERA, ET AL. 

 

Plaintiff(s),¿¿ 

 

vs.¿ 

 

¿KI SEO KIM, ET AL.,¿ 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 21STCV32736 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

April 18, 2024 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Defendant Ki Seo Kim (“Defendant”) propounded requests for production of document (“RPDs”), set one, on plaintiff Tawia Brown (“Plaintiff Brown”) on November 8, 2023. After granting Plaintiff Brown an extension to provide responses by January 15, 2024, Plaintiff has failed to serve responses to date despite several follow-up correspondences by defense counsel. Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff Brown to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.  

Any opposition was due on or before April 5, 2024; the motion is unopposed. 

 

II. MOTION TO COMPEL 

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 Brown was properly served with discovery and failed to timely respond, any objections have been waived. Defendant’s unopposed motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff Brown is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant’s RPDs, set one, without objections, within fifteen (15) days. (CCP § 2031.300 (a),(b).) 

 

III. 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., §2031.300(c).)¿ Plaintiff Brown 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 $526 for the motion. 

It is unclear what the $25 charge for “attorney service filing fee” is in terms of costs; the Court will not award ambiguous requests. Further, Plaintiff did not file any opposition nor was a reply prepared, and thus the amount sought for time not actually spent will not be awarded. Therefore, Defendant is awarded $225 only as attorney’s fees, and $60 for the motion filing fee as costs. 

Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff Brown and her counsel, jointly and severally. Plaintiff Brown and/or her counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $285, within twenty (20) 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.¿ 

 

Dated this 17th day of April 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court