Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV33353, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33353    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

MARINA RUIZ and JAZMIN GUZMAN, 

 

Plaintiff(s),¿¿ 

 

vs.¿ 

 

¿FERNANDO CAZARES, ET AL.,¿ 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 21STCV33353 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO COMPEL 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

March 14, 2024 

 

I. Motions to Compel 

Defendant Fernando Cazares ("Cazares”) propounded special interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, on Plaintiff Marina Ruiz (“Plaintiff Ruiz”) on June 6, 2023. After granting Plaintiff an extension up and until August 21, 2023. However, Plaintiff Ruiz has not served responses to date. Cazares therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff Ruiz to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.   

Any opposition was due on or before March 1, 2024; 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).)    

The Court notes that the motion and proposed order indicates both defendants Cazares and Fidel Calderon propounded the discovery at issue. However, the evidence demonstrates Cazares as the only asking party. Therefore, the Court limits its order pursuant to the evidence provided. Because the evidence shows Plaintiff Ruiz was properly served with discovery by Cazares and failed to respond, the unopposed motions are GRANTED.   

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to defendant Cazares’ special interrogatories, set one, and RPDs, set one, without objections, within twenty (20) 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 Ruiz did not file any opposition. However, sanctions may be awarded, even though no opposition was filed, pursuant to CRC 3.1348(a). Defendant Cazares seeks sanctions in the amount of $960 for each motion.     

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.) Because the motions are nearly identical to each other, the Court will reduce the amount requested.  

Defendant Cazares is awarded $225 total for both motions together, and 1 hour to appear at the hearing at the requested rate of $225 per hour, for a total of $500 in attorney’s fees. Further, Defendant Cazares is awarded two motion filing fees of $60, for a total of $120 as costs.     

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff Ruiz and her counsel, jointly and severally. Plaintiff Ruiz and/or her counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant Cazares, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $620, 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 13th day of March 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court