Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV02455, Date: 2024-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV02455    Hearing Date: November 27, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 November 27, 2024

¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                   23TRCV02455

¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Eric Abbiss v. Exo Energy, Inc., et al.

¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff, Eric Abbiss

RESPONDING PARTY:        Defendant, Exo Energy, Inc. (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE:                        April 14, 2025

¿¿ 

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

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

(3) Request for Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:                  (1), (2) GRANTED; verified responses without objection due by December 27, 2024

(3) GRANTED in a lowered amount.

I. BACKGROUND¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿ 

On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff, Eric Abbiss filed a complaint against Defendants, Exo Energy, Inc. and DOES 1 through 100. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Unlawful Business Practices; and (2) Negligence.

On June 5, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant, Exo Energy, Inc. (“Exo”) with Form Interrogatories, Set One and Demand for Production, Set One. (Declaration of Mark B. Plummer (“Plummer Decl.”), ¶ 2.) On August 13, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff, Mark B. Plummer, Esq. reminded Exo’s counsel that there had been no responses and gave additional time to respond without objection. (Plummer Decl., ¶ 3, Exhibit B.) Despite this effort, Plaintiff contends no responses or production have ever been received. (Plummer Decl., ¶ 4.)

As such, Plaintiff has brought these Motions to Compel Exo’s Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Demand for Production, Set One.

B. Procedural¿¿ 

            On October 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed these Motion to Compel Responses Form Interrogatories, Set One and Demand for Production, Set One. To date, no opposition briefs have been filed, and no declaration has been filed indicating that verified responses have been served during the pendency of these motions which might have mooted the motions.

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, 411 (“Sinaiko”).)

Where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure section  2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 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, because Defendant Exo has failed to comply with discovery by failing to serve timely responses to Plaintiff’s propounded discovery, nor has Defendant Exo filed an opposition brief indicating that any responses have since been served, Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Initial Responses, without objection to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Demand for Production, Set One are GRANTED.

C.    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).)¿¿ 

Here, with Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, he is requesting Defendant Exo be ordered to pay Plaintiff’s counsel $1,635 in monetary sanctions. This amount is based on Plummer’s declaration that his hourly rate is $450, that he spent 1.5 hours drafting the motion estimates 1 hour drafting a reply, estimates 1 hour preparing for and appearing at the hearing, and paid the filing fee of $60. (Plummer Decl., ¶ 5.) Further, with Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Demand for Production, Set One, he is requesting Defendant Exo be ordered to pay Plaintiff’s counsel $2,180 in monetary sanctions. This amount is based on Plummer’s declaration that his hourly rate is $450, that he spent 2.6 hours drafting the motion estimates 1 hour drafting a reply, estimates 1 hour preparing for and appearing at the hearing, and paid the filing fee of $60. (Plummer Decl., ¶ 5.)

This court finds good cause to order Defendant Exo to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff for its failure to comply with discovery. However, the court finds that the hours spent on each motion overstate what is reasonably recoverable since there was no opposition to review, not reply to draft, and no time really needed to prepare for the hearing.   Thus, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions, but in the lowered amount of $2,500 total. Defendant Exo is ordered to provide initial, code-compliant responses without objection as well as the $2,500 in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel, Mark B. Plummer, Esq. on or before December 27, 2024.

III. CONCLUSION

            For the foregoing reasons, this court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions. Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED in a lowered amount specified above. Defendant Exo is ordered to provide initial, code-compliant and verified responses without objection as well as the $2,500 in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel, Mark B. Plummer, Esq. on or before December 27, 2024.

            Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice.