Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV35678, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.



Case Number: 22STCV35678    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

 

 

kimberly lucero ;

 

Plaintiff,

 

 

vs.

 

 

general motors llc , et al.;

 

Defendants.

Case No.:

22STCV35678

 

 

Hearing Date:

March 21, 2024

 

 

Time:

10:00 a.m.

 

 

 

[Tentative] Order RE:

 

plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to demand for inspection and copying

 

 

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Kimberly Lucero

 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant General Motors LLC

Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Inspection and Copying

The court considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with this motion.  No reply papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Kimberly Lucero (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) compelling defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) to serve verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Demand for Inspection and Copying, Set One, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $2,004.15.

If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §¿2031.300, subd. (b).)¿ 

Plaintiff served Defendant with the Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on March 8, 2023, by mail.  (Yashar Decl., Ex. 1.)  Defendant did not timely serve responses and had not served responses as of the date that Plaintiff filed this motion.  (Yashar Decl., ¶ 4.)  In opposition, Defendant has submitted evidence showing that it served, on August 9, 2023, responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents.  (Valencia Decl., Ex. A.)  The court, however, notes that Defendant has asserted objections to various demands.  (Ibid.)  By failing to serve timely responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Defendant has “waive[d] any objection to the demand[s].”[1]  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to serve verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)

The court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)  The court finds that $1,366.65 ((3 hours x $425 hourly rate) + $91.65 filing fees) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Defendant in connection with this motion.  (Yashar Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.)

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiff Kimberly Lucero’s motion to compel written responses to demand for inspection and copying, set one.

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, the court orders defendant General Motors LLC (1) to serve on plaintiff Kimberly Lucero full and complete verified responses, without objections, to plaintiff Kimberly Lucero’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, that comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210-2031.250, and (2) to produce to plaintiff Kimberly Lucero all documents and things in defendant General Motors LLC’s possession, custody, or control which are responsive to those requests, within 20 days of the date of this order.

            The court orders defendant General Motors LLC to pay monetary sanctions to plaintiff Kimberly Lucero in the amount of $1,366.65 within 30 days of the date of this order.

            The court orders plaintiff Kimberly Lucero to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED:  March 21, 2024

 

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court



[1] The court does not rule on any request by Defendant, raised in its opposition papers, to be relieved from its waiver of objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a) [“The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver” on determination that the statutory conditions are satisfied] [emphasis added].)