Judge Randy Rhodes, Case 22CHCP00375 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 22CHCP00375, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCP00375 Hearing Date: March 23, 2023 Dept: F51

Dept. F-51

Date: 3/23/23

Case #22CHCP00375

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(Form Interrogatories, Set One)

Motion Filed: 2/1/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Assistance League of Los Angeles (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Aric Cho, in pro per (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff to serve responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. Defendant further requests that the Court order monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,701.50.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One within 20 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $500.00.¿

The parties are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant, a referral agency that connected Plaintiff with a partner agency to fulfill his mandatory court-ordered community service hours, alleging that Defendant caused Plaintiff to lose employment opportunities. On 10/27/22, Plaintiff filed a Civil Petition against Defendant.

On 12/13/22, Defendant served Plaintiff with its Form Interrogatories, Set One. No responses have been served by Plaintiff to date. On 2/1/23, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. On 2/6/23, Plaintiff filed his opposition. No reply has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS¿

Legal Standard¿

Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its form interrogatories, asserting that Plaintiff failed to respond the discovery requests as required by statute. “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).)

Here, as Defendant served its Form Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff by mail and email on 12/13/22, the last day for Plaintiff to respond was 1/17/23, accounting for Court holidays. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260, subd. (a).) To date, Plaintiff has failed to serve any responses. (Decl. of Joshua Shayne, ¶ 4.)

On 1/18/23, Plaintiff indicated to Defendant, via email, that he would not respond to the discovery requests. (Ex. B to Shayne Decl.) Therefore, as Plaintiff has failed to timely serve any responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Plaintiff has consequently waived any objections thereto. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff argues in opposition that he submitted responses to the discovery requests on 1/26/23, and an amended response on 2/6/23. (Pl.’s Opp., 1:21–24.) However, this contention is not supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury nor a proof of service to corroborate Plaintiff’s claims. To the extent that Plaintiff alleges that the court filings he submitted on those dates constitute his discovery responses, they are improperly made. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.280, subd. (a) “The interrogatories and the response thereto shall not be filed with the court.”)

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One.

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).) 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, Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,701.50 to be imposed on Plaintiff. This amount includes: (1) 3 hours of Defendant’s attorney’s time spent working on this motion; (2) an anticipated 1 hour reading Plaintiff’s opposition; (3) an anticipated 3 hours drafting a reply; and (4) an anticipated 1 hour preparing for oral argument at this hearing, at his hourly billing rate of $205.00 per hour. (Shayne Decl., ¶ 6.)¿The total amount requested also includes and a filing fee of $61.50. (Def.’s Mot., 7:1.)

In granting the instant motion, and noting that Defendant has not filed a reply, the Court finds it reasonable to award Defendant sanctions against Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, in the amount of $500.00. If Plaintiff fails to obey this order compelling his response to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, the Court may make any additional orders that are just, including the imposition of a monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One within 20 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $500.00.