Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 20CHCV00519, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20CHCV00519 Hearing Date: January 30, 2023 Dept: F51
Dept. F-51
Date: 1/30/23
Case #20CHCV00519
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
(Requests for
Production of Documents, Set Two)
Motion Filed: 10/26/22
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Farmers Insurance Exchange;
Truck Insurance Exchange; Fire Insurance Exchange; Mid-Century Insurance
Company; and Farmers New World Life Insurance Company (collectively, “Moving
Defendants”)
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Vincent Kody Pappadato
(“Plaintiff”)
NOTICE: OK
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff to
serve responses to Moving Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set
Two. Moving Defendants further request that the Court order monetary sanctions
against Plaintiff and his counsel in the amount of $2,445.00.
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is moot.
BACKGROUND
On
9/8/20, Plaintiff filed the instant action. On 10/4/21, Plaintiff filed his
operative second amended complaint, which alleges against 9 named defendants
the following causes of action: (1) Fraud – Intentional Misrepresentation; (2)
Negligent Misrepresentation; (3) Breach of Contract; and (4) Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
On 8/11/22, Moving
Defendants served Plaintiff with their Requests for Production of Documents,
Set Two. Plaintiff has since failed to respond to the discovery
requests, as well as Moving Defendants’ meet and confer efforts.
On 10/26/22, Moving
Defendants filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to their Requests
for Production of Documents, Set Two. On 1/17/23, Plaintiff filed his opposition. No reply has
been filed to date.
ANALYSIS
Legal Standard
A
responding party must respond to each propounded request for production of
documents with either a statement of compliance, a representation that the
party lacks the ability to comply, or an objection to the demand. (Code Civ.
Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).)
A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to
a request for production of documents if the responding party fails to serve a
timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300, subd. (b); 2031.260, subd. (a).)
Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives
any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the
protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)
As Moving Defendants served their
Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two on Plaintiff on 8/11/22, the
deadline for Plaintiff to respond was 9/12/22. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260, subd. (a).) As
of that date, Plaintiff failed to serve any responses. (Declaration of Jack
Fischer, ¶ 4.) On
9/27/22, Moving Defendants sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s
counsel, extending the responsive deadline to 10/11/22. (Ibid.) As of that date, no response to either the discovery
requests or the meet and confer communication had been served. (Id. at ¶
5.)
Plaintiff’s
opposition indicates that he served Moving Defendants with his verified
responses to their Requests for Production of
Documents, Set Two by email on 1/12/23. Therefore, the instant motion is moot.
Sanctions
“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, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (c).) “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.” (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 3.1348(a).)
Additionally, “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).)
Here, Moving Defendants request
monetary sanctions in the total amount of $2,445.00 to be imposed on Plaintiff
and his attorney. This amount includes: (1) 5 hours of counsel’s time spent working
on this motion; (2) an anticipated 2 hours to prepare a reply to Plaintiff’s
opposition; (3) 1.5 hours appearing at the instant hearing; and (4) 0.5 hours
preparing a notice of ruling, at his hourly billing rate of $265.00 per hour, in
addition to a $60.00 filing fee. (Fischer Decl., ¶¶ 6–8.)
As the
Court finds that the instant motion is moot, the issue of sanctions is likewise
moot.
CONCLUSION
The motion is moot.