TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar:      10

Date:         10/27/2023

Case No:      23 GDCV00504 Trial Date: None Set 

Case Name: Verdugo Vista Operating Company, LP v. Amantullah

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO

DOCUMENT DEMANDS

Moving Party: Plaintiff Verdugo Vista Operating Company, LP   

Responding Party: Defendant Farouk Amanatullah (No Opposition) 

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Identification and Production of Documents, Set One 

CHRONOLOGY

Date Discovery served:    June 16, 2023, personal 

Extension to Respond to: August 10, 2023 (Ex. B) 

Date Responses served: NO RESPONSES SERVED

 

Date Motion served:  Sept. 29, 2023    Timely 

OPPOSITION:  

No opposition

ANALYSIS:

Interrogatories

Under CCP § 2031.300, “if a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it,” that party “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...”  Under subdivision (b), “the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” 

In this case, document production demands have been directed to defendant and defendant has failed to provide timely responses.   Plaintiff appropriately has moved for an order to compel.  Accordingly, defendant has waived all objections, and is ordered to respond.

Sanctions

Plaintiffs seek monetary sanctions. 

With respect to document demands, under CCP section 2031.300(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 a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling…” 

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuses of the discovery process include, “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  Where there has been such conduct, under CCP section 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, defendant has failed to respond to an authorized method of discovery and propounding party has submitted evidence that it has incurred expenses as a result of the conduct. Since the motion is unopposed, there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust.  Plaintiff requests $897.50, which is not unreasonable, and defendant has not challenged the time or billing rate sought.  The sanctions are awarded as requested. (The declaration also seeks an additional $897.50 in sanctions if the motion is opposed, but this sum is not sought in the notice of motion, as required under CCP § 2023.040). 

RULING:

[No opposition]

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to its Request for Identification and Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED. 

Defendant Farouk Amanatullah is ordered to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents and Things to 

Farouk Amanatullah, Set One, without objection, and to permit inspection and copying within thirty (30) 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 $897.50 (2.5 hours @ $335/hour) [2.5 hours requested] plus $60.00 filing fee [Amount Requested $897.50], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Verdugo Vista Operating Company, LP and against defendant Farouk Amanatullah, payable within 30 days.  CCP sections 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), and 2023.030(a), and CRC Rule 3.1348(a). 

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE 

AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

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.