Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01376, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01376    Hearing Date: August 17, 2023    Dept: G

Defendant Roberto Gomez’s Motion for an Order Compelling Answers to Interrogatories

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

Defendant Roberto Gomez’s Motion to Compel Written Compliance with Request for Production of Items Called for by Inspection Demand Set No. 1

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Roberto Gomez’s Motion for an Order Compelling Answers to Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff Anthony Moreno is ordered to serve code-complaint responses on Defendant without objection within ten (10) days of the issuance of this order. Furthermore, Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED and Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $397.50, payable within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order.

Defendant Roberto Gomez’s Motion to Compel Written Compliance with Request for Production of Items Called for by Inspection Demand Set No. 1 is GRANTED. Plaintiff Anthony Moreno is ordered to serve code-complaint responses on Defendant without objection within ten (10) days of the issuance of this order. Furthermore, Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED and Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $397.50, payable within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from an automobile accident. On October 19, 2020, Defendants Adriana Martinez (Martinez) and Roberto Gomez (Gomez) were involved in an automobile accident with Plaintiff Anthony Moreno in El Monte.

On October 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants and Does 1-20 alleging (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence.

On June 26, 2023, Gomez filed the present motions. A hearing on the motions is set for August 8. A case management conference/status conference re: ADR is also set for August 17.

ANALYSIS

Gomez (Defendant) moves to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery requests including form interrogatories and requests for production of items for inspection. In addition, Defendant seeks sanctions in each motion.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (b) allows the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to requests for production if a response has not been received. Similarly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (b), the propounding party may file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories if a response has not been received. In both cases, a response must be provided within 30 days of service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If responses are untimely, the responding party waives objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a).) The court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes such orders to compel absent substantial justification or other circumstances that make imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).) While the imposition of sanctions is mandatory, the court “has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs requested as a discovery sanction in order to reach a reasonable award.” (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791 (Cornerstone).)

Discussion

On March 24, 2023, Defendant’s counsel served discovery requests on Plaintiff, including form interrogatories and requests for production. (Terzian Decl., ¶ 5.) Subsequently, Plaintiff failed to provide any response or request an extension of time to respond. (Boyd Decl., ¶ 6-7.) While Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration stating they began working on Plaintiff’s responses since March 27, Plaintiff’s counsel stated they have been unable to get in contact with Plaintiff. (Terzian Decl., ¶ 7-10.) However, it does not appear Plaintiff’s counsel ever informed Defendant’s counsel of these delays or requested an extension of time. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motions.

Defendant also requests sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel for each of Plaintiff’s motions to compel. Accordingly, utilizing a lodestar approach and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court awards sanctions and finds reasonable attorney fees and costs in the total amount of $397.50 for each motion to compel ($337.50 for one hour drafting the motion and thirty minutes attending the hearing at $225 an hour plus $60 for filing fees.)

CONCLUSION

Defendant Roberto Gomez’s Motion for an Order Compelling Answers to Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff Anthony Moreno is ordered to serve code-complaint responses on Defendant without objection within ten (10) days of the issuance of this order. Furthermore, Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED and Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $397.50, payable within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order.

Defendant Roberto Gomez’s Motion to Compel Written Compliance with Request for Production of Items Called for by Inspection Demand Set No. 1 is GRANTED. Plaintiff Anthony Moreno is ordered to serve code-complaint responses on Defendant without objection within ten (10) days of the issuance of this order. Furthermore, Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED and Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $397.50, payable within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order.