Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV10651, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV10651 Hearing Date: September 8, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
The Court GRANTS the motions to compel and GRANTS
in part the requests for sanctions.
Background
On March 28, 2022, Plaintiff Norma Oneida
Moran Solares (hereafter “Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Big Lots
Stores, Inc., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, asserting a cause of action for
premises liability stemming from an injury allegedly sustained on or about
October 2, 2019, on Defendant’s premises.
On January 3, 2023, Defendant Big Lots Stores
– PNS, LLC (erroneously sued as Big Lots Stores, Inc.) (“Defendant”) filed an
answer to the complaint.
The same day, Defendant served Form
Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for
Production (Set One) on Plaintiff. (Mathis Decls., ¶ 3 & Exs. A.) Defendant
granted Plaintiff two extensions of time to respond to the discovery. (Id.,
¶¶ 5-6.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff never responded. (Id., ¶ 7.)
On April 3, 2023, Defendant filed these
motions to compel initial responses to the discovery. On August 24, 2023, a
hearing was held on Defendant’s motions to compel initial responses to the
discovery. At the request of Plaintiff’s counsel, the hearing was continued to
September 8, 2023; Plaintiff was ordered to file oppositions by August 31,
2023, and Defendant was ordered to file any replies by September 6, 2023.
(Minute Order (8/24/2023).) Plaintiff still did not file any opposition.
Legal Standard
A responding party has 30 days after
service of interrogatories and an inspection demand to serve their responses on
the propounding party and/or party making the demand. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§
2030.260(a), 2031.260(a).)
If the responding party fails to timely
respond to the interrogatories, “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).” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).)
If a responding party fails to timely respond
to the inspection demand, “The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying,
testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including
one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4
(commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)
Furthermore, the party propounding the
interrogatories and/or making the demand may move for an order compelling
response to the interrogatories and inspection demand. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§
2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).) And “Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a
motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the
propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it
satisfied a ‘meet and confer’ requirement.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting,
Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)
Discussion
On January 3, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery that
included Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and
Requests for Production (Set One). (Mathis Decls., ¶ 3 & Exs. A.) Plaintiff
never responded to this discovery. (Id., ¶ 7.)
Defendant need show no more. Defendant’s motions to compel responses
to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request
for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted.
Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are also granted. Given
the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses, and
the economies of scale associated with filing two parallel motions at the same
time, the Court sets the amount of sanctions as $382.50 per motion (1.5 hours
of attorney time multiplied by the billing rate of $255 per hour). (See Mathis
Decl., ¶ 8.) The total amount of the monetary sanctions awarded is $765.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the motions to compel. Plaintiff
is ORDERED to serve code compliant, verified written responses, without
objection to Form
Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for
Production (Set One) within 30 days of notice of this order.
The Court GRANTS in part Defendant’s requests for sanctions. Plaintiff
and her attorney of record, the Alpine Law Group, are ORDERED, jointly and
severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $765 ($382.50 per motion,
multiplied by two motions) to Defendant within 30 days of notice of this order.
Defendant to give notice.