Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV11567, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV11567, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11567 Hearing Date: August 11, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Valantin Delkhah’s motion to compel Defendant Robert Leo Kunert to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set Two is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED.

Background

On April 5, 2022, Plaintiff Valantin Delkhah (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Robert Leo Kunert (“Defendant”) and Does 1-25, alleging causes of action for general negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff alleges that on March 5, 2022, she was at an address on North Las Casas Avenue in Pacific Palisades, California when she “violently fell to the floor as she tripped over the cracked, dangerous, and defective stairway, causing Plaintiff to suffer serious injuries.”

Defendant filed an answer on August 29, 2022.

Plaintiff served Requests for Production (Set Two) on April 5, 2023. As of the date of filing, Plaintiff had not received any response from Defendant.

On June 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion seeking an order to compel Defendant to respond and for monetary sanctions. No opposition was filed.

Legal Standard

A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to requests for production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Id., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

On a motion to compel initial responses to a request for production, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” the motion, 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., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

California Rule of Court 3.1348, subdivision (a), provides that “[t]he 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, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Discussion

Here, Plaintiff electronically served Request for Production, Set Two, on Defendant Robert Leo Kunert on April 5, 2023. (Behnamjou Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Exh. 1.) Responses were due on May 8, 2023, and Defendant did not request any extensions or serve any responses prior to the deadline. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.)

Although a meet and confer effort was not required, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer email to Defendant’s counsel, requesting verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s RPD, Set Two by June 2, 2023. (Id., ¶¶ 7-8, Exh. 2.) As of the date of filing, Defendant had not provided any responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Id., ¶ 9.)

Plaintiff has shown that discovery requests were propounded and no responses were received.

Accordingly, the motion to compel is GRANTED.

Sanctions

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $685 ($250 per hour for 2.5 hours, plus a $60 filing fee). (Behhamjou Decl., ¶ 10.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Defendant is ordered to provide verified written responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, set Two, within 30 days of notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. Defendant and his record of counsel Stratman & Williams-Abrego are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $685 within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Note: once the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to deny a party’s request to withdraw the motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.