Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case 20STCV36297 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Under CCP § 2030.290, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,” that party “waives any legal right to exercise the option to produce writings...as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...” Under subdivision (b), “The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” CCP §2031.300 contains similar provisions with respect to requests to produce documents.

In this case, interrogatories and document production demands have been directed to defendant Brookfield Properties Retail, Inc. and responding party has failed to serve timely responses. Although the interrogatories motions are a bit confusing, requesting in the caption “Verifications to Responses to Discovery,” the motions are actually motions to compel responses to discovery in the first instance, and are treated by the court as such.

With respect to interrogatories, under CCP § 2030.290(c), “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” A similar provision applies to document demands. See CCP § 2031.300(c).

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuse of the discovery process includes “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP § 2023.030(a), “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct....If a monetary sanction is authorized” by the statute, “ the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP § 2023.030(a).

Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

In this case, responding party defendant Brookfield Properties has failed to respond to authorized methods of discovery and plaintiff has submitted evidence that plaintiff has incurred expenses as a result of the conduct. Since the motions are unopposed, there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Plaintiff requests $465 for each of the three motions, which is reasonable. The sanctions are awarded in the full amount requested.

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $400.00 (1.0 hour @ $400 per hour) [1 hour sought] plus $65.00 filing fee [Amount Requested $465.00], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Gregory Tate and against defendant Brookfield Properties Retail Inc., payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), and CRC Rule 3.1030(a).

Defendant Brookfield Properties Retail is ordered to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Brookfield Properties Retail, Inc., Set Six, without objection, and to permit inspection and copying, within 10 days.

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $400.00 (1.0 hour @ $400 per hour) [1 hour sought] plus $65.00 filing fee [Amount Requested $465.00], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Gregory Tate and against defendant Brookfield Properties Retail Inc., payable within 30 days. CCP sections CCP §§ 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), and CRC Rule 3.1030(a).

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams offers free audio and video appearance. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear. With respect to the wearing of face masks, Department D recognizes that currently, the Los Angeles Department of Public Health strongly recommends masks indoors, especially when interacting with individuals whose vaccination status is unknown; for individuals who have a health condition that puts them at higher risk for severe illness; individuals who live with someone who is at higher risk; and for individuals who are around children who are not yet eligible for vaccines. In accordance with this guidance, it is strongly recommended that anyone personally appearing in Department D wear a face mask. The Department D Judge and court staff will continue to wear face masks. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.