Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV02318, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV02318, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV02318 Hearing Date: October 3, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: October 3, 2024

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV02318

¿¿

CASE NAME: Cynthia Booze, et al. v. One Imperial Plaza LP, et al

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC. Dba SUPERIOR GROCERS (“SCC”)

¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, but no oppositions filed

¿¿

TRIAL DATE: None

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions

(2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1) , (2) GRANT plus monetary sanctions in the combined amount of 1,620

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

This wrongful death action arises from a fatal shooting which occurred on January 26, 2023, in the parking lot of the Superior Grocers supermarket located at 11202 Crenshaw Boulevard in Inglewood. At the time of the incident, Super Center Concepts, Inc. (“SCC”) operated the Superior Grocers pursuant to a commercial lease with One Imperial Plaza, LP (“One Imperial”), which owned the property. Plaintiff Cynthia Booze (“Plaintiff”) is the mother and purported heir of Decedent Gordy Nnamdi Aniako (“Decedent.”) Plaintiff has sued SCC, One Imperial, and others for Negligence, Wrongful Death, Respondeat Superior Liability, and Negligent Hiring/Retention in connection with the incident. SCC has filed an Answer denying all liability.

B. ¿ Procedural

On July 18, 2023, Plaintiff Cynthia Booze filed the complaint against Defendants ONE IMPERIAL PLAZA LP, a California corporation; SUPERIOR WHSE. GROCERS INC., a California corporation; THE RIGHT CHOICE HOME REMODELING, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, alleging (1) negligence, (2) wrongful death, (3) respondeat superior, and (4) negligent hiring and retention.

On October 24, 2023, One Imperial Plaza LP filed the cross-complaint. On December 18, 2023, Super Center Concepts, Inc filed the cross-complaint. On February 27, 2024, The Right Choice Home Remodeling, Inc filed a cross-complaint.

On August 5, 2024, Defendant SCC filed the instant Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One.

As of 5 a.m. on the morning of the hearing, no oppositions have been filed.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿

A. Legal Standard ¿

Motion to Compel Further

¿ Discovery motions to compel further responses must be served within 45 days after service of the responses in question (extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, or fax). (CCP §§ 2030.300, 2031.310, 2033.290; CCP § 1013.) Otherwise, the demanding party waives the right to compel any further response. (CCP §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), 2033.290(c), 2016.050; see Sperber v. Robinson (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 736, 745.) The 45day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) However, the parties can also agree in writing on a specific later date by which to file the motion to compel. (CCP §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), 2033.290(c).) Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request shall be accompanied by a separate statement providing all information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses at issue. (CRC § 3.1345(a),(c).)

Motion to Compel Initial

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.)¿ ¿¿

Sanctions

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).)¿¿¿ ¿

B. Discussion

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

Meet and Confer

Before bringing a motion to compel further responses to any discovery request, the moving party must make efforts to meet and confer in good faith and submit a declaration attesting to those efforts. (CCP §§ 2031.310(b)(2), 2030.300(b), 2033.290(b).)

On or about July 19, 2024, counsel for SCC agreed to give Plaintiff until July 26, 2024 to respond to SCC’s meet-and-confer letter, including serving further responses to SCC’s Special Interrogatories, Set One and Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff’s counsel also agreed to extend SCC’s time to file discovery deadlines by one week. (Young Dec. at ¶ 11; Exh. I.) Subsequently, counsel for SCC and Plaintiff exchanged multiple phone calls and emails in which SCC granted Plaintiff a series of extensions to provide further responses. Plaintiff did not respond to SCC’s meet-and-confer letter or request any additional extensions by July 26, 2024.

Thus, the meet and confer requirement has been satisfied.

45-Day Time Limit

Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (CCP §§ 2030.300(c), 2033.290(c).) If such notice is not given, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Id.)

Here, on May 29, 2024, Plaintiff served initial responses to SCC’s “Set One” Special Interrogatories. (Young Dec., at ¶ 8, Exh. F.) Defendant filed the motion on August 5, 2024, and made service of the motion by mail on the same day. (Motion, p. 9, Proof of Service.) However, the parties agreed to multiple extensions up to July 26, 2024. Accordingly, Plaintiff had notice of the motion within the time limit, and Defendant has complied with the notice requirement.

Merits

Here, on March 8, 2024, SCC electronically served its “Set One” written discovery on Plaintiff. This included a set of Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Young Decl. at ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s “Set One” discovery responses to SCC were initially due on or before April 9, 2024. Plaintiff did not serve any discovery responses on or before that date, nor did Plaintiff request an extension of time to respond. (Young Decl. ¶ 3.)

On May 29, 2024, Plaintiff served initial responses to SCC’s “Set One” Special Interrogatories. (Young Dec., at ¶ 8, Exh. F.) On June 27, 2024, counsel for SCC emailed Plaintiff’s counsel a meet-and-confer letter regarding discovery. Among other things, the letter demanded that Plaintiff serve further responses to SCC’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 7-18, 25-27, 31-36, 43-45, 61- 66, 78, 81, 83, 85-86, 106-107, 116, 118-119, 123-124, and 126. The letter demanded a response by no later than Monday, July 8, 2024. (Young Dec., at ¶ 9, Exhs. G-H.) To date, Plaintiff has never served any further or supplemental responses to SCC’s Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Young Dec. at ¶ 12.) Notably, no oppositions were filed.

Thus, the Court grants the Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

Thus, the Court grants the Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

Sanctions

SCC moves this Court for costs, attorney’s fees, and monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the sum of $1,060.00 for the Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One. SCC also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,560.00 based upon the attorney’s fees and filing fees incurred in bringing this Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Young Decl, ¶ 13.)

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.010(d) provides that failure to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery (such as Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One) is a “misuse of the discovery process.” The propounding party’s remedy is to file a motion for an Order compelling responses to the interrogatories. (C.C.P. § 2030.290.) If the motion is granted, the Court may order that the party to whom the interrogatories were directed pay the propounding party’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees. (C.C.P. § 2023.030.) Reasonable expenses include the time moving party’s counsel spent in research and preparation of the motion and court time in connection with the motion. (See Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262.)

Here, sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff failed to respond at all to the form interrogatories and failed to respond to the meet and confer requests as to deficiencies in the considerably tardy responses to the special interrogatories. The Court grants sanctions in the combined amount of $1,500 plus $120 for both filing fees) for a total of $1,620, payable withing 30 days by plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel to the law offices of the moving defendant.

¿¿¿¿¿

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

¿¿¿¿¿