Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV37765, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV37765     Hearing Date: December 21, 2022    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

20STCV37765 Gonzalez, et al. v. Alameda Square Owner, LLC, et al.

Motion to Compel Responses of Plaintiff Irma Gonzalez to Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, Without Objections, and Request for Sanctions filed by Defendants/Cross-Complainants ACG Property Management LLC and Alameda Square Owner, LLC is GRANTED.

Background

               This is an action for premises liability.

               On October 1, 2020, Plaintiffs Irma Gonzalez and Juan Gonzalez Perez initiated this action against Defendants Alameda Square Owner, LLC, Alameda Square Mezz, LLC, ACG Property Management LLC, Cuco’s Best Produce, and Does 1 through 100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) premises liability; (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (3) loss of consortium.

               On January 28, 2021, Defendants ACG Property Management LLC and Alameda Square Owner, LLC filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) total indemnity; (2) implied partial indemnity; (3) declaratory relief; (4) equitable apportionment; and (5) express indemnity.

               On October 13, 2022, Defendants/Cross-Complainants ACG Property Management LLC and Alameda Square Owner, LLC (hereinafter, “Movants”) filed the instant motion to compel responses of Plaintiff Irma Gonzalez to Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, without objections. Movants also request monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Irma Gonzalez in the amount of $429.65.

               No opposition has been filed. 

Legal Standard

               A party may propound a supplemental interrogatory or supplemental demand for production of documents to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made by any party.  (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.070, subd. (a), 2031.050, subd. (a).)  Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) 

Discussion

I.                 Merits

               Here, on June 9, 2022, Movants propounded on Plaintiff Irma Gonzalez a Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, and responses were due on July 11, 2022. (Motion at pg. 2; Oh Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. A.) Because of Plaintiff’s failure to respond, Movants’ counsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel on August 6, 2022 and September 8, 2022 but to no avail. (Motion at pg. 2; Oh Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. B.) Due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide responses to the subject discovery, Movants are entitled to an order compelling responses without objection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (a), (b).)

               Accordingly, the Court grants Movants’ motion.

II.               Sanctions 

               Movants also request the Court to award monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Irma Gonzalez in the amount of $429.65.

               “The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to Interrogatories . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Also, Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) authorizes sanctions for misuse of discovery, which includes: failure to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. (Id. §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (e), (f), (g) & (h).)

               In this instance, Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Movants’ discovery request amounts to a misuse of the discovery process; thus, the Court finds that sanctions are warranted against Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (d).) In terms of the amount request, Movants’ counsel attests that her hourly rate is $122.67 and that she has incurred and/or will incur the following expenses: (1) “Three (3) hours for preparation of this Motion, supporting Declaration and papers, Reply briefs and appearance at the Motion hearing”; and (2) a $61.65 filing fee. (Oh Decl. ¶ 9.) While the amount requested is not excessive, some of the anticipated fees have not been incurred. For instance, an opposition has not been filed, and as a result, Movants’ counsel has not spent any time preparing a reply. Also, appearances will likely be remote. Additionally, the instant motion did not concern a complicated legal issue. Thus, the Court should award sanctions in the reduced amount of $245.66, consisting of 1.5 hours at a rate of 122.67 per hour for preparing the instant motion and appearing for the hearing as well as the filing fee.

               Accordingly, Movants’ request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff is granted in the reduced amount of $245.66.

Conclusion

               Movants’ Motion to Compel Requests of Plaintiff Irma Gonzalez to Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, Without Objections is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses without objections within 20 days of receiving notice of this Order.

               The request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Irma Gonzalez is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $245.66. Plaintiff is instructed to tender payment to Movants’ counsel within 30 days of receiving notice of this Order. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.