Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case Number: 19STCV13174, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV13174, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV13174 Hearing Date: September 18, 2023 Dept: 31

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motions to compel responses to special interrogatories, request for production of documents, and supplemental production of documents are DENIED as MOOT.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff Jocelyn Newman and counsel of record Martin Stanley are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $530, 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).) 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 and requests for production of documents 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), 2031.300(c).)

Discussion

On March 9, 2023, Defendant served Special Interrogatories (Set Two), Request for Production of Documents (Set Two), and Supplemental Request for Production of Documents (Set One), on Plaintiff. (Weiss Decl., Exhs. A.) Responses were due on or before April 10, 2023. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to produce responses on or by April 10, 2023 and did not request an extension. (Weiss Decl. ¶ 3.) On July 27, 2023, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel inquiring whether Plaintiff intended to provide responses to written discovery. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Plaintiff's counsel did not respond. (Id.)

In Defendant’s notice of non-opposition, Defendant informs the Court that responses to the discovery at issue were received on September 7, 2023.

As such, as verified responses to the request for discovery were provided, the motions to compel those responses are moot, regardless of whether they are complete or not.

As to sanctions, Plaintiff’s counsel has not provided substantial justification for the failure to provide responses or any other basis upon which an award of sanctions would be unjust. Nevertheless, the Court will reduce the amount of sanctions awarded due to the simplicity of the motions and nature of the concurrent facts. As such, the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff Jocelyn Newman and counsel of record Martin Stanley in the amount of $530 ($175 an hour for 2 hours, plus $180 in filing fees), jointly and severally, to be paid within 30 days of this order.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to compel responses to special interrogatories, request for production of documents, and supplemental production of documents are DENIED as MOOT.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.