Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV01159, Date: 2024-10-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV01159    Hearing Date: October 22, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 October 22, 2024¿ 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                   24TRCV01159

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Carolina Montelongo v. City of Inglewood, et al.

¿¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a public entity

¿¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:        Plaintiff, Carolina Montelongo

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                        Not Set.

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set one

(2) Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) GRANTED

(2) GRANTED in the lowered amount of $560.

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff, Carolina Montelongo (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, City of Inglewood, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and DOES 1 through 100. The complaint alleges one cause of action for: (1) Premises Liability. The complaint is based on the allegations that Plaintiff was injured at or near the bus stop (Metro 170), located at the intersection of Club Dr. and Century Blvd., Inglewood, CA 90303 when she tripped over an object protruding out of the sidewalk that appeared to be part of a bench that was no longer there. Plaintiff asserts that she suffered severe injury due to her fall.

On May 14, 2024, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) served Form Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff along with Metro’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Metro asserts that Plaintiff’s responses were due on June 14, 2024. However, on June 14, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email requesting and receiving a two-week extension to serve responses, with a new due date for June 28, 2024. Thereafter, Metro provided Plaintiff’s counsel with additional discovery extensions, until September 11, 2024. As of the date Metro filed the motion, Metro had not received responses to its Form Interrogatories, Set One.   As such, Defendant Metro filed this Motion to Compel Initial Responses from Plaintiff.

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On September 19, 2024, Defendant Metro filed this Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set one. On October 10, 2024, Defendant Metro filed a Notice of Non-Opposition. On October 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief.  As of 5 p.m. on Monday October 21, i.e., the close of business the afternoon before the hearing on this motion, no reply brief has been filed and no notice of lodging verified, belated responses as promised by the Opposition brief have been submitted.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿ 

A.    Motion to Compel Further Interrogatories

                           i.          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”).)

                         ii.          Discussion

Here, Defendant Metro has requested this Court order Plaintiff’s verified, code-compliant responses without objection to Form Interrogatories, Set One. In this case, Plaintiff does not dispute that she failed to provide timely responses. Instead, Plaintiff’s counsel contends that they have had difficulty completing the discovery on time due to missing pertinent medical records. Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that Defendant Metro’s counsel has not allowed for any other extensions despite the difficulties and Plaintiff’s counsel’s attempts to be responsive and communicative to Defense counsel. However, as of the date of Plaintiff’s opposition brief filing (October 11, 2024), Plaintiff asserts that she has received the missing medical records as of October 2, 2024, and anticipates providing verified responses before the subject motion to compel hearing date.   But good faith discovery obligations do not stop when counsel is unable to obtain discovery.  Plaintiff could have provided the responses to most of the discovery requests and indicated that responses that required medical records would be supplied promptly after those records have been received.  Plaintiff could have responded that it retains the right to supplement its response when she received the documents.

The Court has not received any updates from either party as to whether Plaintiff has since served her responses on Defendant. The Court notes that IF Plaintiff has served verified, code-compliant responses before or even as of the time of the hearing, then the substantive motion to compel initial responses would be deemed moot. However, if Plaintiff has not submitted verified, code-compliant responses at or before the hearing date, then the Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff is ordered to served verified, code-compliant responses without objection on or before November 4, 2024.

                       iii.          Sanctions

Plaintiff has also requested monetary sanctions in bringing their motion. Sanctions are generally awarded 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.¿¿(Code Civ. Proc.  §§ 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.) 

Even if Plaintiff has served verified, code-compliant responses prior to the hearing date, thus mooting the substantive motion, that would not per se moot the request for monetary sanctions, especially since Defendant Metro has had to file a motion in order to receive responses. Defendant Metro has requested sanctions be imposed against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $1,120. This amount is based on the Declaration of Eitan Yehoshua (“Yehoshua Decl.”), which states that his hourly rate is $280, that he spent 1.5 hours preparing the motion, declaration, and accompanying exhibits, and that he anticipates spending 1.5 hours to review any opposition and prepare a reply brief, and that he anticipates 1 hour to appear at the hearing on the motion. (Yehoshua Decl., ¶¶ 5(a), (b), & (c).) The court finds that Yehoshua’s hourly rate is reasonable, but notes that as of current, no reply brief is on file, and that a hearing on this motion to compel will not take one (1) hour. As such, the court GRANTS Defendant Metro’s request for monetary sanctions, but in the lowered amount of $560.

III. CONCLUSION¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿¿ 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Metro’s Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to served verified, code-compliant responses without objection on or before November 4, 2024.  Moreover, this court GRANTS monetary sanctions in the lowered amount of $560. Defendant Metro is ordered to provide notice.