Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: 2022-01254039, Date: 2023-06-15 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories

Plaintiffs, Zoila Haydee Duarte, individually and as successor-in-interest to Stephanie Haydee Duarte, deceased, Esau Duarte, individually and as successor-in-interest to Stephanie Haydee Duarte, deceased, the Estate of Stephanie Haydee Duarte, by and through its successor-in-interest Zoila Haydee Duarte’s (Plaintiffs) unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two from Defendant, Heritage Inn 2 of Las Vegas, LLC d/b/a Home2 Suites (Defendant) is GRANTED in part.

Merits

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides in part:      “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: [¶] (a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010)…[¶] (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.[¶] (c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”

Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant must be compelled to respond to Special Interrogatories, Set Two because Plaintiffs properly served Defendant with Special Interrogatories, Set Two on 11-17-22 and have not received responses to date. (Motion, 3:13-28.)

Exhibit A to the Declaration of Michael Fabrega (Fabrega Declaration) in Support of Motion is a copy of Special Interrogatories, Set Two to Defendant which shows it was served on 11-17-22. The Fabrega Declaration in Support of Motion also states: “[a]s of the time this motion is being filed, Heritage has still not served any responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two.” (Fabrega Decl., ¶ 6.)

Therefore, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Defendant failed to timely respond to Special Interrogatories, Set Two. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED as to the request for order compelling responses.

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions of $1,635 against Defendant Heritage and/or its counsel, Law Offices of Garber, Av & Duncan in connection with this Motion. (Motion, 5:21-6:4.) Fabrega attests that this amount compromises of 2 hours to research and draft the Motion, an anticipated 2 hours to review the opposition and prepare a reply, and 0.5 hours to appear at the motion, at a rate of $350 per hour. (Fabrega Decl. ¶ 7.) Fabrega also requests reimbursement of a $60 filing fee. (Id.)

The Court is inclined to award sanctions. However, the instant Motion is unopposed and Plaintiffs did not file a reply. Therefore, the Court reduces the sanctions to $935, which compromises of the 2 hours to draft the Motion, 0.5 to attend the hearing, and the $60 filing fee.

Based on the foregoing, the Motion is GRANTED in part as to the request for monetary sanctions. Sanctions of $935 are awarded against Defendant and its counsel, Law Offices of Garber, Av & Duncan.

Defendant is ordered to serve responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, without objection within 30 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiffs are to give notice.