Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV02118, Date: 2024-09-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV02118    Hearing Date: September 4, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling 

HEARING DATE:                 September 4, 2024

CASE NUMBER:                  23TRCV02118

CASE NAME:                        Barbara Miranda v. City of Santa Monica, et al.

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant, City of Santa Monica 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff, Barbara Miranda (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE:                        June 9, 2025         

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

                                                (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

                                                (3) Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) GRANTED; Verified answers ordered by Sept. 25, 2024

                                                (2) GRANTED.   Verified written response with documents ordered by Sept. 25, 2024

                                                (3) GRANTED in an amount to be discussed with the Court during oral argument.  The moving papers sought $250 and $500 for the two motions, which the Court would be inclined to grant upon being provided additional information bearing on the lodestar factors

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

      On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff, Barbara Miranda (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint against Defendant, City of Santa Monica, and DOES 1 through 50. The complaint alleges a cause of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff boarded Defendant’s bus at or near the intersection of Lincoln and Manchester Boulevards in Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff contends that after she boarded the bus but before she was able to secure herself, Defendant’s bus driver negligently operated the bus in such a manner as to cause Plaintiff to fall and suffer injuries and damages.

On March 26, 2024, City of Santa Monica (“City”) asserts that it served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.  The moving papers claim the responses were due on April 29, 2024. Thereafter, City notes that Plaintiff requested a two-week extension to provide responses, the last of which making the operative due date May 27, 2024. However, on May 27, 2024, City contends that Plaintiff did not provide responses, nor request a further extension. Counsel for City notes that he emailed Plaintiff’s attorney twice requesting the responses. Nonetheless, City asserts that as of the drafting of these motions to compel, no responses have been received. As such, City has brough these Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s initial responses as well as a request for monetary sanctions.

B. Procedural  

            On July 9, 2024, Defendant City filed its motions to compel initial responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. To date, no opposition has been filed.

            On August 5, 2024, this Court continued the hearing on this motion from August 15, 2024 to September 4, 2024. There is still no opposition on file nor has Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that verified responses were belatedly served. 

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 

Defendant City notes that on March 26, 2023, it served its Set One of discovery on Plaintiff. However, despite City granting an extension, making the due date of responses May 27, 2024, and contacting Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the responses on two occasions, Plaintiff has failed to serve verified responses, or any responses at all. Because of this, the Court’s tentative ruling is to GRANT City’s motion. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant responses without objection to City’s propounded discovery on or before September 25, 2024.

            C. Sanctions

            Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(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 because of that conduct.  Misuse of discovery includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §¿2023.010(d)). 

            Along with City’s Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents Set One, City also included a Request for Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $250 for the Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories, Set One, and $500 for the Motion to Compel Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. This amount is based on counsel for City, Robert Baggs’ declaration (“Baggs Decl.”). In his declaration, Baggs notes his hourly rate is $250, spending an hour to draft and prepare the Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories, and also anticipates spending another hour on the reply and at the hearing. (Baggs Decl., ¶ 8.) Nonetheless, Baggs only requests $250 for that motion. As for the motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, City has requested $500, based on Baggs spending over an hour to draft and prepare, anticipates another hour to review any opposition and draft a reply, and also anticipates another hour at the hearing. (Baggs Decl., ¶ 8.)

            Based on the above, the Court notes that the monetary sanctions requested are reasonable. The Court also notes that no opposition was filed, nor was there a reply brief filed. As such, since the amounts requested are not specified by hours spent and hourly rate, the Court requires oral argument from City’s attorney indicating how much this Court should allot based on time spent and hours not spent on reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply brief.

IV. CONCLUSION  

 For the foregoing reasons, City’s Motions to Compel Responses from Plaintiff are GRANTED and are order to be served, verified, code-compliant, and without objection on or before September 25, 2024. Further, City’s Requests for Monetary Sanctions are GRANTED, but in an amount to be discussed by City’s counsel during oral argument.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.