Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV18697, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV18697    Hearing Date: October 31, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE 

Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in part.

Background 

This is an action for premises liability arising from alleged injuries causes by a train in Griffith Park in Los Angeles on May 19, 2018.  On May 15, 2020, Plaintiffs Malvina Mkhchyan, Ovsanna Mkhchian, Adam Bersigian (a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Ovsanna Mkhchian) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, Travel Town Transportation Museum, City of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation, and Does 1 through 50, asserting claims for premises liability and general negligence.

On September 26, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint against the same defendants, asserting a single cause of action for premises liability. 

On October 31, 2022, Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) filed an Answer and a Cross-Complaint against Roes 1 through 20.

On February 16, 2023, Defendant served discovery on Plaintiffs, including Special Interrogatories (Set One) directed to Plaintiff Adam Bersigian (“Plaintiff”).  (Smith Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.)  Counsel exchanged correspondence, but Plaintiff never served responses to the discovery.  (Id., ¶¶ 3-8 & Exh. B.)

On August 29, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Special Interrogatories.  Defendant also seeks sanctions.

Plaintiff did not file any opposition to the motions.

The Court is aware that Defendant filed other discovery motions in this case that were set for hearing this month.

Trial is scheduled for December 20, 2023.

Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).)  In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

When a party moves to compel initial responses to interrogatories, “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 [the motion], 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020, subd. (a).)

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed ….” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)  

Discussion

On February 16, 2023, Defendant propounded Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Plaintiff.  (Smith Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff never served responses.  (Id., ¶¶ 3-8.)

Defendant need show nothing more.  The motion to compel is GRANTED.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED.  Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses, and the economies of scale associated with preparing multiple parallel motions, the Court awards sanctions on the motion in the amount of $525, calculated as 2.5 hours of attorney work multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $210 per hour.  (See id., ¶ 9.)  

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide verified, code-compliant, written responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 21 days of notice of this order.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff and counsel of record K & L Associates are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $525 within 21 days of notice of this order.

Moving party to give notice.