Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 21TRCV00625 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21TRCV00625, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00625 Hearing Date: January 5, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿

¿¿¿

HEARING DATE: January 5, 2023¿¿

¿¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 21TRCV00625

¿¿¿

CASE NAME: Dipu Haque, et al v. Michael Ball, et al.

¿¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Dipu Haque, et al.

¿¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: None

¿¿¿

TRIAL DATE: None Set.¿

¿¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set 2), RE: Power Water, LLC

(2) Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set 4), RE: Power Pop, LLC

(3) Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set 6), RE: Power Distribution, LLC

Tentative Rulings: (1), (2), (3) GRANTED. Monetary sanctions of $500 per each of the 3 motions is also granted

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿

¿¿¿

A. Factual¿¿¿

¿¿¿

This action involves a self-represented defendant who has not filed any papers in response to a flurry of discovery motions filed by Plaintiffs in this case. Other than filing an Answer in October of 2021, the Defendant has not filed any motions, statements, declarations or any other papers.

On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff Dipu Haque’s former counsel served 17 sets of discovery on Defendant via regular mail, including the 3 sets the Court could ascertain to be on calendar for hearing on January 5, 2023. Two other motions were reserved for hearing for the Court lacks any motion papers for them. Each set of Requests for Production of Documents concern a different business entity. Defendant’s verified responses were due November 19, 2021. Plaintiff claims that she has not received responses or otherwise communicated with Defendant to explain why he has not responded. (See Declaration of Rosa Kwong (“Kwong Decl.”)

B. Procedural¿¿¿

¿¿

On March 16, 2022, Plaintiffs filed these motions to compel responses. To date, no responses have been filed. Defendant did not file an opposition.

¿¿

¿II. MEET AND CONFER ¿¿¿

¿¿

None.

¿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. (c).) 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.)

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).)¿¿

Here, it does not appear that Defendant has filed any response to the 3 sets of motions that are the subjects of the motion hearing on January 5, 2023. As such, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. The Court orders Defendant Michael Bell to serve verified written responses to each of the Requests for Production in each of sets no. 2, 4, and 6, without objections, and to produce the responsive documents, if any, on or before January 31, 2023.

B. Sanctions

Plaintiffs claim that for each of the 3 motions presented to the Court today, they have incurred $450 in attorney’s fees preparing each motion and another $60 in anticipated court filing fees. Additionally, Plaintiffs request $225 per motion for anticipated reply brief, filing fees, etc. As such, Plaintiffs request $735 per motion. No reply brief was needed, but the Court awards $500 per motion for a total of $1,500.

IV. CONCLUSION¿¿¿

¿¿¿¿

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel responses are GRANTED.

¿¿¿¿

Moving party is ordered to give notice.¿¿¿¿¿