Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 22STCV15875, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time.  See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).   All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 22STCV15875    Hearing Date: April 19, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Damon Nixon’s motion to compel Defendant Prudent Security Solutions, Inc., to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) is denied as moot.

Plaintiff Damon Nixon’s motion to compel Defendant Prudent Security Solutions, Inc., to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One) is denied as moot.

Plaintiff Damon Nixon’s motion to compel Defendant Prudent Security Solutions, Inc., to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production (Set One) is denied as moot.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted in the reduced total of $1,495.50, payable within 20 days.

          Plaintiff Damon Nixon (“Nixon”) (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Prudent Security Solutions, Inc. (“PSS”) (“Defendant”) to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) (“General FROG”).  (Notice of Motion General FROG, pg. 1.)  Petitioner also requests an award of sanctions against Defendant pursuant to C.C. P. § 2031.300 and 2023.300 (Notice of Motion General FROG, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §2031.300; CRC Rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One) (“Employment FROG”).  (Notice of Motion Employment FROG, pg. 1.)  Petitioner also requests an award of sanctions against Defendant pursuant to C.C. P. § 2031.300 and 2023.300 (Notice of Motion General FROG, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §2031.300; CRC Rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production (Set One) (“RFP”).  (Notice of Motion RFP, pg. 1.)  Petitioner also requests an award of sanctions against Defendant pursuant to C.C. P. § 2031.300 and 2023.300 (Notice of Motion General FROG, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §2031.300; CRC Rule 3.1348(a).)

          Background

          On August 8, 2022, Plaintiff served written discovery upon Defendant, which included the instant General and Employment FROGs and RFP.  (Decls. of Cox ¶¶3.)   Defendant was previously represented by counsel that has since been replaced by Counsel Loyst P. Fletcher.  (Decl. of Fletcher ¶1.)  On September 7, 2022, Defendant requested, and Plaintiff granted, a two-week extension to serve Defendant’s responses.  (Decl. of Cox ¶4, Exh. 1.)  On September 21, 2022, Defendant requested, and Plaintiff granted, another two-week extension to serve Defendant’s responses making Defendant’s responses due October 5, 2022.  (Decl. of Cox ¶4, Exh. 1.)  Plaintiff followed up with Defendant on or about October 12, 2022, and October 17, 2022, when the responses were not received.  (Decl. of Cox ¶5, Exh. 1.)  Before filing the instant motions, Plaintiff again reached out to Defendant once again inquiring about the status of Defendant’s responses. (Decl. of Cox ¶6.)

          On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motions.  On March 16, 2023, Defendant retained Counsel Fletcher.  (Decl. of Fletcher ¶1.)  On March 27, 2023, Defendant filed its oppositions and served Plaintiff with responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.  (Decl. of Fletcher ¶¶5-6, Exh. A.)  On April 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed his replies.

Motion to Compel Compliance

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed either fails to respond at all, or responds with objections or incomplete answers, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers to the interrogatories.  (C.C.P. §§2030.290, 2030.300; see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)  An unverified response is tantamount to no response at all.  (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)  Relief for untimely motions may be available, however, under C.C.P. §473(b) based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”  (C.C.P. §473(b).)

Where there has been no timely response to a C.C.P. §2031.010 demand to produce documents, the first thing the demanding party must do is to seek an order compelling a response.  (C.C.P. §2031.300.)  Failing to respond to a C.C.P. §2031.010 demand within the time permitted waives all objections to the demand, including claims of privilege and work product.  (C.C.P. §2031.300(a).)

          Here, Defendant failed to timely respond to Petitioner’s interrogatories and request for production with verified responses.  Defendant has prepared and served responses, without objections, to all of Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests.  (Decls. of Fletcher, Exhs. A.)  However, Defendant’s responses are not verified and are tantamount to no response at all.  (See Appleton, 206 Cal.App.3d at pg. 636.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant to provide answers to Petitioner’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One), Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One), and comply with inspection demands to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) are denied as moot.

          Request for Monetary Sanctions

Petitioner requests awards of sanctions against Defendant on each of the three motions pursuant to C.C. P. § 2031.300 and 2023.300 (Notice of Motion General FROG, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §2031.300; CRC Rule 3.1348(a).)   

Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300 allows for sanctions when moving to compel responses to requests for production; it does not provide sanctions for moving to compel responses to interrogatories.

There is no Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.300. 

Plaintiff’s counsel declares her hourly rate is $575.00.  (Decls. of Cox ¶¶8.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares each discovery motion took 1.5 hours to prepare, and she anticipates spending another 1.5 hours reviewing Defendant’s oppositions, preparing a reply, and preparing for and attending the hearing on each motion, for a total of three hours per motion.  (Decls. of Cox ¶¶8.)  Plaintiff’s counsel further declares the filing fee for filing each motion was $60.00 each.  (Decls. of Cox ¶¶8.)  Plaintiff’s counsel requests sanctions in the amount of $1,785.00 per motion for a total of $5,355.00 in sanctions.  (See Decls. of Cox ¶¶8.)  

Considering that there is no proper authority cited for the sanctions on motions to compel the form interrogatories, the Court will allow sanctions only for the motion to compel responses to requests for production.  As to that motion, the Court will allow 1.5 hours for drafting the motion and 1.0 hours for attending its hearing.  The Court will grant the request to be reimbursed for the filing fee on that motion.  Thus, the Court will award $1,495.50 (2.5 hrs x $575 + $60). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Respondent is reduced to a total of $1,495.50, payable within 20 days.

Dated:  April _____, 2023

                                                                                                                  
        Daniel M. Crowley
     Judge of the Superior Court