Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 18STCV00804 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 18STCV00804, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020)

IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants.

ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 18STCV00804 Hearing Date: March 22, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Kyle Sieber’s motions to compel responses to supplemental interrogatories, and supplemental production of documents are GRANTED. Plaintiffs Anthony Dawson and Ismael Diomande are ordered to provide full and complete answers to the outstanding Supplemental Requests for discovery without objections, within 30 days of this order.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiffs Anthony Dawson and Ismael Diomande and attorney of record D. Hess Panah are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $510, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.

Legal Standard

Compel Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)

In addition to the limited number of interrogatories that may be propounded, a party may propound “a supplemental interrogatory” to obtain later-acquired information on¿matters covered¿by earlier interrogatories (but not on other topics). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070(a).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905–906.)

Compel RPDs

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) 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.

A party may propound “a supplemental demand” to inspect, copy, test, or sample any later acquired or discovered documents, tangible things…. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.050.)

Such supplemental demands may be made 1)¿twice¿prior to initial setting of a trial date, and 2) subject to the discovery “cut-off” date (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.010 et seq.), once¿after the initial setting of a trial date. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.050(b), 2030.070(b).) For good cause shown, the court may allow a party to propound¿additional¿supplemental demands for inspection. This allows for updating of previously requested information. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.050(c), 2030.070(b).)

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to compel responses to interrogatories against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c).)

Under CCP section 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

Discussion

On October 18, 2022, Defendant served Supplemental Interrogatories, and Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, on Plaintiffs. (De La Cerda Decl. ¶ 5; Exh. A.) As of the time of filing the motion, no responses to the discovery requests were received. (Id., ¶ 7.)

As Defendant properly served discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to a court order directing Plaintiffs to provide full and complete answers to the outstanding Supplemental Requests for discovery without objections. Therefore, the motions are granted.

As the motions are granted, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and attorney of record D. Hess Panah is granted but in a reduced amount due to the simplicity of the motions and the nature of the concurrent facts. Thus, Plaintiffs and attorney of record D. Hess Panah are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $510 ($195 per hour for 2 hours, plus $120 in filing fees), jointly and severally, within 30 days.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant Kyle Sieber’s motions to compel responses to supplemental interrogatories, and supplemental production of documents are GRANTED. Plaintiffs Anthony Dawson and Ismael Diomande are ordered to provide full and complete answers to the outstanding Supplemental Requests for discovery without objections, within 30 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.