Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00116, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00116    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                    March 15, 2024¿ 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                      23TRCV00116

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                           Elsa Feeny v. Valdovinos Transport, LLC, et al.   

¿¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                (1) Defendants, Valdovinos Transport, LLC, Jose Aberto Valdovinos Cadena erroneously sued as Jose A. Valdovinos

¿¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:        (1) Plaintiff, Elsa Feeny (No opposition)

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                       April 21, 2025

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff, Elsa Feeny’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

                                                (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff, Elsa Feeny’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

                                                (3) Motion to Compel Plaintiff, Elsa Feeny’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One

                                                (4) Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:                     (1) GRANTED

                                                (2) GRANTED

                                                (3) GRANTED

                                                (4) GRANTED $373 per motion, totaling $1,119.

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff Elsa Feeny (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Valdovinos Transport, LLC, Jose A. Valdovinos, Oscar Martin, and DOES 1 through 20. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence.

            On September 20, 2023, Defendant counsel served counsel for Plaintiff Elsa Feeny with discovery including: Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Defendant notes that Plaintiff’s responses were originally due on October 23, 2023, but that on October 18, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel requested an extension to November 7, 2023. Defendant notes that it granted this extension. However, on November 14, 2023, Defense counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the status of Plaintiff’s responses and defense counsel never received a response. Plaintiff never served responses.

On November 22, 2023, defense counsel served counsel for Plaintiff with a meet and confer letter requested responses without objections by December 6, 2023. On December 18, 2023, after not having heard from Plaintiff’s counsel, defense counsel sent another meet and confer letter requesting responses without objections by December 26, 2023. After not hearing from Plaintiff’s counsel, on January 2, 2024, defense counsel emailed again putting Plaintiff’s counsel on notice that Defendant was scheduling a Motion to Compel. On January 30, 2024, defense counsel emailed counsel for Plaintiff and advised that the Motion to Compel was scheduled for March 15, 2024.

On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed that his client’s responses would be served no later than February 13, 2024. Nonetheless, counsel for Defendant notes that Plaintiff has still not served any responses. As such, Defendant has filed these motions to compel.

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On February 20, 2024, Defendant filed the motions to compel further. To date, no opposition has been filed.  

¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A.    Legal Standard

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, 41

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. 

B.    Discussion

Here, Defendant has indicated that Plaintiff has failed to respond to its propounded set of discovery. Per the moving papers, Defendant has attempted to coordinate with Plaintiff’s counsel on numerous instances, but despite this Plaintiff has provided no responses. The Court notes that there has been no indication that Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for record for Plaintiff. As such, the Court does not understand Plaintiff’s failure to respond. With that being said, Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses to each discovery request propounded by Defendant, and to produce the responsive documents, without objection on or before April 5, 2024.

C.    Sanctions

            Sanctions must be imposed against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the party acted with a substantial justification or that other circumstances would make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c); see also Code Civ. Proc., § 708.020, Law Revision Commission Comments [“if the judgment debtor fails to answer interrogatories without substantial justification, sanctions may include an award of attorney’s fees”].) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” 

            For each of the three motions, Defendant has requested sanctions in the amount of $373/per motion ($1,119 total) to be paid to Defendants by the Plaintiff and/or the Plaintiff’s counsel. This amount is based on the declaration of Defendant’s  counsel, Koren Jozana who has represented her hourly rate as $250/hour. She notes that she spent one hour on each of these motions, spent $62.50 to reserve the hearing date per motion and $62.50 for filing fees for each motion. The Court finds the hourly rate and time spent per motion to be more than reasonable. As such, the Court GRANTS this request for sanctions, and awards sanctions to Defendant to be paid by Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel to defense counsel on or before April 15, 2024 in the amount of $373 per motion, totaling $1,119.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.