Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV40020, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40020    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

EMILY ROBINSON, ET AL.,  

Plaintiff(s),¿¿ 

vs.¿ 

JONATHAN PRESTO, ET AL.,¿ 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 21STCV40020 (C/W 23SMCV01405) 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

March 25, 2024 

ESTELLE GRIMES a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, EMILY ROBINSON, 

                          Plaintiff(s),¿¿ 

              vs.¿ 

JONATHAN PRESTO, ET AL.,¿ 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

 

 

I. MOTION TO COMPEL 

Defendant Jonathan Presto ("Defendant”) propounded form interrogatories, set one, on plaintiff Estelle Grimes a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Emily Robinson (“Plaintiff Grimes”) on September 15, 2023. (Fairchild Decl. ¶ 5; Exh. A.) The responses were due on October 17, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 6.) After receiving no response, defense counsel sent correspondences on October 25, 2023 and November 14, 2023 to Plaintiff Grimes’ counsel requesting responses within 10 days. (Id. at ¶ 7, 9.) However, Plaintiff Grimes failed to serve responses to date. (Id. at ¶10.) Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff Grimes to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.  

Any opposition was due on or before March 12, 2024; the motion is 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).)    

Therefore, because the evidence shows Plaintiff Grimes was properly served with discovery and failed to timely respond, any objections have been waived. Defendant’s unopposed motion is GRANTED.  

Plaintiff Grimes, by and through her guardian ad litem Emily Robinson, is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories, set one, without objections, within fifteen (15) days. (CCP § 2030.290(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 Grimes did not file any opposition. However, sanctions may be awarded, even though no opposition was filed, pursuant to CRC 3.1348(a). Defendant seeks $760 in monetary sanctions for the 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.)  

Defendant is awarded one hour to draft the motion, and one hour to appear at the hearing, at the requested rate of $175 per hour for a total of $350 in attorney’s fees. Further, Defendant is awarded one motion filing fee of $60, as costs.      

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff Grimes and her attorney of record, jointly and severally. Plaintiff Grimes and/or her counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $410, 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 22nd day of March 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court