Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 20CHCV00519, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20CHCV00519 Hearing Date: January 31, 2023 Dept: F51
Dept. F-51
Date: 1/31/23
Case #20CHCV00519
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
(Special
Interrogatories, 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’ Special Interrogatories, 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 Special Interrogatories, 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 Special
Interrogatories, Set Two. On 1/17/23, Plaintiff filed
his opposition. No reply has been filed to date.
ANALYSIS
Legal Standard
“The party to whom interrogatories have been
propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory
by any of the following: (1) An answer containing the information sought to be
discovered; (2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings; or (3)
An objection to the particular interrogatory.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).)
“In the first paragraph of the response immediately below the title of the
case, there shall appear the identity of the responding party, the set number,
and the identity of the propounding party.” (Id., subd. (b).) “Each
answer, exercise of option, or objection in the response shall bear the same
identifying number or letter and be in the same sequence as the corresponding
interrogatory.” (Id., subd. (c).)
A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to
interrogatories if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within
30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§
2030.290, subd. (b); 2030.260, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party
who fails to serve a timely response “waives any right to exercise the option
to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the
interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work
product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §
2030.290, subd. (a).)
As Moving Defendants served their Special
Interrogatories, Set Two on Plaintiff on 8/11/22, the deadline for Plaintiff to
respond was 9/12/22. (Code Civ. Proc. §
2030.260, 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 Special Interrogatories, 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 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.” (Code Civ.
Proc. § 2030.290, 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.