TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar:    1

Date:         4/7/2023

Case No:    20 STCV36297 Trial Date: Sept. 18, 2023 

Case Name: Tate v. Langford, et al.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 

(3 Motions)

Moving Party: Plaintiff Gregory Tate   

Responding Party: Defendant Good Treats, LLC (No Opposition)  

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two 

Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two 

Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two  

CHRONOLOGY

Date Discovery served:    December 8, 2022   

Date Responses served: NO RESPONSES SERVED 

 

Date Motion served:  January 26, 2023    Timely 

OPPOSITION:  

No opposition.   

ANALYSIS:

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 Good Treats, LLC and responding party has failed to serve timely responses.  Although the special interrogatories motion is a bit confusing, requesting in the caption “Verifications to Responses to Discovery,” the motion is, like the other two motions, actually a motion to compel responses to discovery in the first instance, and is treated by the court as such. 

Propounding party appropriately has moved for orders to compel.  Accordingly, responding party has waived the option to produce writings, as well as all objections, and is ordered to respond.  

Sanctions

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.”

The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice.  Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990, 2nd Dist.) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.  

In this case, responding party defendant Good Treats, LLC 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$1,265 for the motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, and $225 for each motion in connection with Special Interrogatories and Document production.  The time to attend the hearing (1 hour @ $400 per hour) is sought only once.  The sums are reasonable.  The sanctions are awarded in the full amounts requested. 

RULING:

[No opposition]

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses and Verifications to Discovery (Form Interrogatories Set 2) is GRANTED.   

Defendant Good Treats, LLC is ordered to serve verified responses to Form Interrogatories—General, Set No. Two, without objection, 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 $1,200.00 (3.0 hours @ $400 per hour) [3 hours sought] plus $65.00 filing fee [Amount Requested $1,265.00], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Gregory Tate and against defendant Good Treats, LLC, payable within 30 days.  CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), and CRC Rule 3.1030(a).

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Verification to Responses to Discovery (Special Interrogatories Set 2) is GRANTED.   

Defendant Good Treats, LLC is ordered to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories to Defendant Good Treats, Set Two, without objection, 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 $225.00 (0.4 hours @ $400 per hour) [.4 hours sought] plus $65.00 filing fee [Amount Requested $225.00], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Gregory Tate and against defendant Good Treats, LLC, and defendant’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days.  CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), and CRC Rule 3.1030(a).

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses and Verifications to Discovery (Request for Production Set 2) is GRANTED.   

Defendant Good Treats, LLC is ordered to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Good Treats, LLC, Set Two, 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 $225.00 (0.4hours @ $400 per hour) [.4 hours sought] plus $65.00 filing fee [Amount Requested $225.00], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Gregory Tate and against defendant Good Treats, LLC, and defendant’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days.  CCP sections CCP §§ 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), and CRC Rule 3.1030(a).

 GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO ADHERE TO HEALTH GUIDANCE THAT DICTATES SAFETY MEASURES, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

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.