Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV24225, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24225    Hearing Date: March 7, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

PATRICK RAYFIELD,¿ 

 

Plaintiff(s),¿¿ 

s.¿ 

 

¿SAFEWAY, INC., ET AL.,¿ 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV24225 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO COMPEL 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

March 7, 2024 

 

I. Motion to Compel 

Defendant The Vons Companies, Inc., erroneously sued as Safeway, Inc., ("Vons”) propounded (1) form interrogatories, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) RPDs, set one, on plaintiff Patrick Rayfield (“Plaintiff”) on April 27, 2023. After granting Plaintiff three requests for an extension, with responses ultimately being due on October 27, 2023, Plaintiff has failed to serve responses to date. Vons therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.  

Any opposition was due on or before February 23, 2024; the motions are unopposed. 

For a motion to compel 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 was properly served with discovery and failed to timely respond, any objections have been waived. Vons’s unopposed motions are GRANTED.  

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to defendant Vons’s (1) form interrogatories, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) 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 did not file any opposition. However, sanctions may be awarded, even though no opposition was filed, pursuant to CRC 3.1348(a). Vons seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,185 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.)        

Here, Vons’s counsel does not state the rate per hour in which she the request for attorney fees were calculated. Further, the amount requested per motion is excessive for this type of straightforward motion. Therefore, Vons is awarded $200 per motion only for attorney fees. Further, Vons is awarded three motion filing fees of $60, for a total of $180, as costs.    

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally. Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Vons, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $780, 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 6th day of March 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court