Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 23STCV19724, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV19724 Hearing Date: April 11, 2024 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
CARLOS VAZQUEZ,
Plaintiff(s),¿¿ vs.¿
¿DORA MEDRANO, ET AL.,¿
Defendant(s). | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) | CASE NO: 23STCV19724
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO COMPEL
Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. April 11, 2024 |
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Carlos Vazquez (“Plaintiff”) propounded (1) form interrogatories, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) demand for production of documents, set one, on defendant Dora Medrano (“Defendant”) on August 31, 2023. After granting defense counsel’s multiple requests for extensions up to November 17, 2023, Defendant served responses without verifications on November 17, 2023. Plaintiff requested Defendant to serve the signed verifications by December 18, 2023. However, Defendant has failed to serve verifications to date. Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses and to pay sanctions.
Any opposition was due on or before March 26, 2024; the motions are unopposed.
II. MOTIONS TO COMPEL
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).)
Plaintiff avers the responses contained minimal information without signed verifications. Plaintiff did not provide a copy of Defendant’s responses. The Court presumes that the responses, timely served, contained a mixture of objections and fact-specific responses. Accordingly, the Court is guided by Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal. App.4th 651, 658, which stands for the proposition that omission of the verification portion of the response containing fact-specific responses merely renders that portion of the response untimely and therefore creates a right to move for orders and sanctions as to those responses, but does not result in a waiver of objections made. Therefore, because the evidence shows Defendant was properly served with discovery, and there is no indication that objection-only responses were served in which verifications are not required, Plaintiff’s unopposed motions are GRANTED.
Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses/verifications to Plaintiff’s (1) form interrogatories, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) demand for production of documents, set one, within twenty (20) days. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).)
III. 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). Sunset seeks sanctions in the amount of $811.65 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.)
Plaintiff is awarded one hour for each motion to compel, and one hour to appear at the hearing (awarded only once), at the requested rate of $250 per hour for a total of $1,000 in attorney’s fees. Further, Plaintiff is awarded three motion filing fees of $61.65, for a total of $184.95 as costs.
Sanctions are imposed against Defendant and her counsel, jointly and severally. Defendant and/or Defendant’s 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:
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 10th day of April 2024
|
|
| Hon. Michelle C. Kim Judge of the Superior Court
|