Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 22GDCV00736, Date: 2023-10-20 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 responding party, and responding party has failed to serve timely responses.

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.

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files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”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 has failed to respond to authorized methods of discovery and propounding party has submitted evidence that propounding party 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. Defendant requests $461.65 for each of three motions. These amounts are reasonable, and there is no opposition objecting to the reasonableness of the time spent or the claimed billing rate. The sanctions are awarded in full as requested.

Plaintiff Narine Shiroyan is ordered to serve verified responses to Judicial Council Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, 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 $461.65 (2.0 hours @ $200 per hour) [2 hours sought] plus $61.65 filing fee [Amount Requested $461.65], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant Reza Shahkaram, and against plaintiff Narine Shiroyan, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), and CRC Rule 3.1030(a).

Plaintiff Narine Shiroyan is ordered to serve verified responses to Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents, Set Number One, 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 $461.65 (2.0 hours @ $200 per hour) [2 hours sought] plus $61.65 filing fee [Amount Requested $461.65], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant Reza Shahkaram, and against plaintiff Narine Shiroyan, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 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 by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.

If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.