Judge: Ralph C. Hofer, Case: 24NNCV01952, Date: 2025-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV01952    Hearing Date: February 21, 2025    Dept: D

Date Motion served:                          December 17, 2024     Timely

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 demands to produce documents.

In this case, form and special interrogatories and document production demands have been directed to plaintiff Emma Franco, and plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses, after being permitted several extensions of time to do so.  The court grants the motions and orders further verified responses, without objection, to be served by plaintiff, and order that responsive documents be produced.   

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, 2^nd Dist.) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436. 

In this case, plaintiff has failed to respond to authorized methods of discovery and made these motions necessary.  Defendant has submitted evidence showing that defendant 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.  Sanctions must be awarded.  The sanctions requested are $562.50 for each of three motions.  1 hour at $225 per hour is sought to appear remotely at the hearing for each of the motions, which will be heard together, so this time will be adjusted.  

RULING:

[No opposition]

Motions are granted. 

UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Emma Franco’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED.  Plaintiff Emma Franco is ordered to serve verified responses to Form Interrogatories—General, 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 $562.50 (2.5 hours @ $225/hour) (2.5 hours requested) [Amount Requested $562.50], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc.,  and against plaintiff Emma Franco and plaintiff’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 3.1348(a).

Counsel for moving party is ordered to prepare an order for sanctions and submit it on eCourt by noon today in accordance with this order.

UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Emma Franco’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED.  Plaintiff Emma Franco is ordered to serve verified responses to Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set 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 $337.50( 1.5 hours @ $225/hour) (2.5 hours requested) [Amount Requested $562.50], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc.,  and against plaintiff Emma Franco and plaintiff’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 3.1348(a).

Counsel for moving party is ordered to prepare an order for sanctions and submit it on eCourt by noon today in accordance with this order.

UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Emma Franco’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Emma Franco is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to Request for Identification and Production of Documents to Plaintiff, Set One, 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 $337.50 (1.5 hours @ $225/hour) (2.5 hours requested) [Amount Requested $562.50], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc.,  and against plaintiff Emma Franco and plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days.  CCP sections 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a) and CRC Rule 3.1348(a).

Counsel for moving party is ordered to prepare an order for sanctions and submit it on eCourt by noon today in accordance with this order.

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE

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.  Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances.  Please note that in the case of video appearances, 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.