Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2022-01243341, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Walgreen Co. (“Defendant”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff, Terri Carpentier (“Plaintiff”) to provide further answers to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SPROG”), Nos. 4 and 10, within 10 days of the service of the Notice of Ruling, and awarding Defendant monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,578 against Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, to be paid within 10 days of the service of the Notice of Ruling.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff provided inadequate and insufficient responses to SPROG, Nos. 4 and 10 which seek relevant and essential facts to Plaintiff’s claims of negligence; that Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s two meet and confer letters; that the motion is timely; and Plaintiff’s failure to provide adequate or further responses is willful and without substantial justification such that Defendant requests that the Court order monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,578 against Plaintiff and her attorneys, jointly and severally.

Plaintiff contends that further responses were served, rendering the motion moot; that Plaintiff asserted well-founded objections; that the responses were not evasive or incomplete; that there was no meaningful meet and confer by Defendant; and that sanctions are unnecessary as Plaintiff provided complete and proper responses to discovery, has not abused or misused the Discovery Act, and that there is no evidence that any alleged failure to comply is willful. Plaintiff also contends that the amount requested for this garden-variety motion to compel is excessive.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a) provides that a party propounding discovery may move for an order compelling a further response if an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, or an exercise of the option to produce documents under Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code. Civ. Proc. Section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(b).)

Here, Plaintiff provides that prior to filing and serving her opposition, Plaintiff served further responses to SPROG, Nos. 4 and 10. (Declaration of Alicia S. Curran, ¶ 2.) Thus, the Court DENIES as MOOT the motion as it relates to further responses.

As for Defendant’s request for $1,578 in monetary sanctions, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d) provides: “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further 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.” The court may also impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a).) Misuses of the discovery process include “[f]ailing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010 (i).)

The declaration from Defendant’s counsel provides that Defendant seeks 2.9 hours to prepare the instant motion, 4.0 hours to review any opposition, prepare a reply, and attend any hearing, for a total of 6.9 hours, at an hourly rate of $220 per hour, plus the court filing fee. (Declaration of Tim A. Hodge, ¶ 6.) The Court finds the rate reasonable and time expended to be reasonable.

Plaintiff did not act with substantial justification, did not respond to attempts to meet and confer, and there is no showing that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Declaration of Tim A. Hodge, ¶¶ 4-5.)

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration provides that “[t]he meet and confer letters were not properly processed by our office.” (Declaration of Alicia S. Curran, ¶ 3.) However, based on a review of the letters, it appears that the meet and confer letters dated June 9, 2022, and July 8, 2022, were e-mailed directly to Attorney Curran. (See Exs. C and D to Declaration of Tim A. Hodge.)

Thus, the Court AWARDS Defendant monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,578 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, to be paid within 30 days of the notice of ruling.

Defendant to give notice.