SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

Plaintiff Diva Abdul-Mansour (“Plaintiff”) propounded (1) form interrogatories, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, on Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) on October 17, 2022. Responses were due on November 22, 2022. Eight months later, Plaintiff’s counsel followed up regarding the responses. Defense counsel replied he was unaware of the propounded discovery, and requested thirty days to provide responses, making the due date September 29, 2023. On October 2, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel followed up and extended the time to respond to October 6, 2023. However, as of the date of the motions’ filings on October 23, 2023, Defendant had not served responses. Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Defendant to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.  

 

In opposition, Defendant provides verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s propounded discovery were served on November 30, 2023. Therefore, the Court finds that the motions 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.  

 

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).)¿ Defendant argues monetary sanctions should not be awarded because Plaintiff’s counsel waited months to follow-up on the outstanding discovery. However, defense counsel does not address that Plaintiff’s counsel provided Defendant an extension to serve responses, and Defendant failed to do so in a timely manner. Defendant serving the responses weeks after the agreed upon deadline cuts against the argument that it “acted promptly to provide verified responses.” The Court finds sanctions warranted here. 

 

Plaintiff requests $1,860 for the motion to compel form interrogatories, $510 for the motion to compel special interrogatories and $510 for the RPDs. 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.) Accordingly, the Court will reduce the monetary sanction request.  

 

Plaintiff is awarded $300 to prepare each motion to compel for a total of $900 in attorney’s fees. Further, Plaintiff is awarded three motion filing fees of $60, for a total of $180 as costs.  

 

Sanctions are imposed against Defendant and Defendant’s attorney of record, jointly and severally.  Defendant and/or defense counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,080, within fifteen (15) days. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

 

Dated this 15th day of December 2023