Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 19STCV28087, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV28087 Hearing Date: September 27, 2023 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling¿¿¿
¿¿¿¿
HEARING DATE: September 27, 2023¿¿¿
¿¿¿¿
CASE NUMBER: 19STCV28087
¿¿¿¿
CASE NAME: Jessica
Zazueta. V. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation., et al
¿¿¿¿
MOVING PARTY: Defendant, LAX Hotel Investment Company, Inc. dba Wingate
by Wyndham LAX
¿¿¿¿
RESPONDING PARTY: None (No Opposition filed by Plaintiff)
¿¿¿¿
TRIAL DATE: July 29, 2024
¿¿¿¿
MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to
Respond to Requests for Production, Set One
(2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form
Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One
¿¿
¿
Tentative Rulings: (1) Motion to Compel RFPs is GRANTED.
Monetary sanctions awarded as well, payable by Plaintiff’s counsel to defense
counsel within 30 days.
(2) Motion to Compel SROGs and FROGs is GRANTED. Ditto for
the monetary sanctions.
¿¿¿
I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿¿
A. Factual¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿¿
On August 7,
2019, Plaintiff first filed a Complaint in this case. On June 7, 2022,
Plaintiff, Jessica Zazueta (“Plaintiff”) filed her First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”) against Defendants, Wyndham Worldwide Corporation; Wyndham
Destinations, Inc.; Wingate by Wyndham LAX; LAX Hotel Investment Company, Inc.;
Linda Oh; Korey Small, and DOES 1 through 20 (collectively “Defendants”). On
July 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging a
cause of action for: (1) Battery; (2) Negligence; (3) Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress; (4) Fraudulent Concealment; (5) Private Nuisance; and (6)
Public Nuisance. The case is alleged to arise out of a single night stay
at defendant’s hotel where Plaintiff alleges bodily injuries and more due to a
bed bug infestation in her hotel room.
¿
B. Procedural¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿
On August 31,
2023, Defendant, LAX Investment Company, Inc. dba Wingate by Wyndham LAX
(“LAX”) filed these two motions to compel. To date, no opposition has been
filed.
¿II. MEET AND CONFER ¿¿¿¿
Defendant LAX provides the
declaration of its counsel, Natalya Samsonova, which states that on August 8,
2023, Defendant LAX’s counsel sent an email correspondence to Plaintiff’s
counsel and his assistants and entire staff requesting discovery
responses. No responses were
received. (Declaration of Natalya
Samsonova ISO MTC RPD and MTC FROGs, SROGs (“Samsonova Decl.”), ¶ 5.)
¿
¿III. ANALYSIS¿¿¿
¿¿¿
A. Motions to Compel Responses
A party must
respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30
days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for
production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the
requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd.
(b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one
based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290,
subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for
a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents
other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code
Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No
meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses
to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare
Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)
¿¿¿¿
Here, Plaintiff has failed to respond to any of Defendant
LAX’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set
One and Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Samsonova
Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) As of the afternoon
before the hearing, no opposition has been filed nor any indication that tardy
responses were received which might moot the motions. As such, the Court GRANTS Defendant
LAX’s motion to compel responses to its discovery requests and orders Plaintiff
to respond.
B. Sanctions
Defendant LAX has requested that this Court impose monetary
sanctions against Plaintiff and/or its counsel.
in the amount of $1,286.65 for the motion to compel responses to
production of documents and $1,531.65 for its motion to compel responses to
form interrogatories and special interrogatories.
Code of Civil
Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that
the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of
the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s
fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery
process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of
discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)¿¿Sanctions are mandatory
for a party making or opposing a motion, except when the party making or
opposing the motion is determined by the Court to have been acting with
substantial justification, or that other circumstances would render the
imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) Under
the Civil Discovery Act, the Court is only entitled to impose monetary
sanctions in the amount of “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,
incurred by anyone as a result of” the misuse of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2023.030, subd. (a).) The purpose of discovery sanctions is “not to provide a
weapon for punishment, forfeiture and the avoidance of a trial on the merits,
but to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem
presented.” (Parker v. Wolters Kluwer U.S., Inc. (2007) 149 Cal. App.
4th 285, 301.) Consequently, “[t]he trial court cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery
process as a punishment.” (Doppes v. Bentley
Motors, Inc. (2009) 174
Cal. App. 4th 967, 992.)¿¿
Defendant LAX asserts that as a result of Plaintiff’s
failure to respond to Defendant LAX’s discovery requests, Defendant LAX has
incurred the expense of filing its motions to compel, in the amount of $1,286.65
as to the production of documents (5 hours at $245 hourly rate plus filing fee
of $61.65) and $1,531.65 as to the form interrogatories and special
interrogatories (6 hours at $245 hourly rate plus filing fee of $61.65). (Samsonova Decl., ¶ 6.) Because Plaintiff has failed
to respond to any of Defendant LAX’s discovery requests and has failed to
engage in Defendant’s LAX’s meet and confer attempts, this Court GRANTS Defendant
LAX’s request for sanctions. However, because of the simplicity of the Motions
to Compel and the fact that there was neither an opposition nor reply, the
amount is reduced to $551.65 per motion (2 hours at $245 hourly rate plus
filing fee of $61.65).
Also, with respect to the sets of
interrogatories at issue, the Court notes that Defendant LAX filed its motions
to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special
Interrogatories, Set One together in one motion when they should have been
filed separately. (See Govt.
Code § 70617(a)(4) (setting forth the required filing fee for each motion,
application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing); see also Weil
& Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group
2011) [8:1140.1] (“Motions to compel compliance with separate
discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”).)
The Court will overlook this procedural error since it is arguably more
efficient to joint the two interrogatory motions together since there were no
responses to either and no need for separate statements.
¿
IV. CONCLUSION¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿¿¿
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant
LAX’s Motions to Compel responses are GRANTED.
This Court also GRANTS Defendant LAX’s request for monetary sanctions on Plaintiff
in the amount of $551.65
per motion or a total of $1103.30, payable by Plaintiff’s counsel to
defendants’ counsel within 30 days of Defendant’s giving written notice of this
ruling.