Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV31049, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31049    Hearing Date: September 26, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

CARMEN TRUJILLO, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

MIGUEL REYES, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV31049 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO COMPEL 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

September 26, 2023 

 

I. Motions to Compel¿ 

Plaintiff Carmen Trujillo (“Plaintiff”) propounded form interrogatories, set one, and special interrogatories, set one on Defendant Miguel Reyes (“Reyes”) on October 27, 2022. Plaintiff also propounded request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, on both Defendants Reyes and Drillers Pipe Manufacturing, LLC (“Drillers”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff’s counsel conferred with defense counsel regarding discovery extension requests and responses. To date, Defendant Reyes has not served responses. Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling only Defendant Reyes to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.  

Any opposition was due on or before September 13, 2023. Defendants filed an opposition on September 25, 2023, just one day before the hearing. The Court will not consider the late opposition.  

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., § 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., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  

Therefore, because the evidence shows Defendant Reyes was properly served with discovery and failed to respond, Plaintiff’s motions are GRANTED. Although the RPDs, set one, were propounded to both Defendants, Plaintiff seeks to compel only Defendant Reyes; therefore, the Court’s order is limited to Plaintiff’s request as specified in the Notice.  

Defendant Reyes is ordered to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs, 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 to interrogatories, unless a court makes certain findings.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)¿Defendants filed a late opposition, which the Court will not consider. Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $811.65 for each motion against Defendant Reyes and his counsel of record.  

Plaintiff is awarded 1 hour to prepare each motion to compel and one hour to appear at the hearing- but is awarded this time only once- all at the requested rate of $250 per hour, for a total of $1,000 in attorney fees.   

Further, Plaintiff is awarded three motion filing fees of $61.65, for a total of $184.95, as costs.   

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant Reyes and his attorney of record.  Sanctions are imposed against Defendant Reyes and his attorney of record, jointly and severally.  Defendant Reyes and/or his counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,184.95, within twenty (20) days. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • The Court is not available to hear oral argument on this date.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative and want oral argument, the hearing will have to be continued, and the parties must work with the clerk to find an available date for the continuance. 

  • 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 25th day of September 2023 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court