Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV13762, Date: 2024-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13762    Hearing Date: January 5, 2024    Dept: 29

Tentative

The motions of Defendant Normandie 800 S LLC to compel Plaintiff Raquel Mascorro to respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One) is GRANTED.

The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in part.

Background

This case arises out of an alleged slip and fall at a business on November 2, 2021.  located at 3260 West Eighth Street in Los Angeles, California. 

On April 26, 2022, Plaintiff Raquel Mascorro (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action asserting causes of action for general negligence and premises liability against Mercado Benito Juarez, Inc. (“MBJ”), Normandie 800 S LLC (“Landlord”), and Does 1 through 20,.

On June 21, 2022, Landlord filed its Answer to the Complaint.  On the same day, Landlord filed a Cross-Complaint against MBJ and Roes 1 through 50.

On August 16, 2022, MBJ filed Answers to the Complaint and the Cross-Complaint.

On January 19, 2023, Landlord served Plaintiff with discovery, including Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One).  (Bates Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff did not respond.  (Id., ¶ 5.)

On December 6, 2023, Defendant filed these two motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to the discovery.  Plaintiff did not file any opposition.

Trial is scheduled for February 21, 2024.

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).)

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 response to the demand. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2031.300; 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., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

When a party moves to compel initial responses to requests for production, “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., § 2031.300, 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).)

“[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].”  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 407.)  Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses … the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.”  (Id. at pp. 408-409.)  This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.”  (Id. at p. 408.)  If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.”  (Id. at p. 409.) “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, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)  

Discussion

On January 19, 2023, Landlord served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One).  (Bates Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff has not responded to this discovery.  (Id., ¶ 5.)

Landlord need not show anything more.  The Court GRANTS Landlord’s two motions to compel.

The Court also GRANTS in part Landlord’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel of record.  Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses, and the economies of scale associated with filing multiple discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions on each motion in the amount of $440.00, calculated based on 2 hours of attorney work, multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $220.00 per hour.  (See Bates Decl., ¶ 9.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Landlord’s two Motions to Compel.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve code-compliant, verified, written responses, without objection to Landlord’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 14 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve code-compliant, verified, written responses, without objection to Landlord’s Requests for Production (Set One) within 14 days of notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS in part Landlord’s request for sanctions.

Plaintiff and counsel of record MHM Law Group, APLC are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay Landlord monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $880 ($440 per motion, multiplied by two motions) within 21 days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.