Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 22TRCV01338, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff, Cypress Airiel Jonest (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, Food For Less of Southern California, Inc., Manager Anthony, and DOES 1 through 50. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) General Negligence; and (2) Premises Liability.

On May 17, 2023, Ralphs notes that it initiated discovery by serving Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. The moving papers assert that Plaintiff failed to serve any responses by the deadline of June 23, 2023. Ralphs claims its counsel attempted to contact Plaintiff’s counsel, and forwarded meet and confer correspondence in an effort to obtain responses, indicating it would permit last service of verified responses on or before July 21, 2023. That same day, Ralphs indicates that Plaintiff served verified responses, but that the responses contained objections that Ralphs asserts had been waived by the failure to have served timely responses earlier.

On August 21, 2023, Ralphs’ counsel wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel, advising of the defense position that many of the answers contained objections and were nonresponsive and addressing the issues with Plaintiff’s inadequate answers. Ralphs’ meet and confer letter requested further responses on or before September 1, 2023 to ward off a threatened motion to compel or three. On August 21, 2023, Ralphs notes that Plaintiff’s counsel responded to the meet and confer letter and that defense counsel granted a further extension to provide verified responses without objections on or before October 1, 2023. When no such further responses arrived by October 1, Ralphs brought these motions.

On October 12, 2023, Ralphs filed three motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents. To date, no opposition briefs have been filed. On November 30, 2023, Ralphs filed a motion of non-opposition. The hearing was originally set for December 7, 2023, and at the hearing the parties discussed Plaintiffs’ belated supplemental responses served that same day as well as how to address the monetary sanctions issue. The Court continued the motion hearing to January 8, 2024. At the Informal Discovery Conference conducted by the Court on January 2, 2024, the Court expressed its views that defendants’ service of the requested second supplemental responses would likely moot the motions to compel but not the motion for sanctions, since the second supplemental responses were not served until the day of the December 7, 2023 hearing and it appeared likely that it was only the pending discovery motions that finally facilitated the preparation and service of the second supplemental responses. The Court encouraged counsel to see if the monetary sanctions amount could be negotiated.

II. ANALYSIS

Motions to Compel Responses

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories 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).) 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).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411

Further, where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required.¿

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (a), provides that “[o]n receipt of a particular response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.”¿¿Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise the propounding party waives the right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b).)

Here, the July 17, 2023, meet and confer letter notes that although an extension was given to provide the responses, the responses were to be provided without objection as Plaintiff was late and did not request an extension of time. (Declaration of William E. Johnson (“Johnson Decl.”), Exhibit B.) However, Plaintiff still subsequently provided responses with objections in December of 2023, over a month after the 3 subject discovery motions were filed. While plaintiff’s counsel agreed to stipulate to drop the objections during the IDC, the Court has not seen conformation of the stipulation. However, the Court is satisfied that the December 7, 2023 second supplemental responses were verified and that service of them effectively moots the substantive motions, re-setting the 45-day clock to move to compel still further responses.

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel.(CCP. §§ 2030.290(c),¿2030.300(d),¿2031.300(c),¿and 2031.310(h).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”(Id.)

Ralphs has also requested sanctions in the amount of $1,310 per motion ($3,930 total) against Plaintiff Jones and/or her attorney of record, Law Offices of Jacob Emrani. This request is based on the Declaration of William E. Johnson who notes that he has spent 2.4 hours in preparation of each motion, anticipates an additional 2.5 hours preparing the reply briefs and attending the hearing, and that his rate is $250 an hour. Further, Johnson notes that he has spent $60 on the filing fee. Here, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not file an opposition brief, so the expected 2.5 hours or $625 per motion for the reply briefs did not materialize. As such, this Court GRANTS Ralphs’ Request for sanctions in the lowered amount of $2,000 against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, Law Offices of Jacob Emrani, jointly and severally to be paid to counsel for Ralphs on or before January 31, 2024.