Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV24329, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24329    Hearing Date: October 10, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions.

Background 

This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident that allegedly occurred on May 7, 2022, near the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Westwood Boulevard in Los Angeles, California.   

On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff Ramin Tour (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Phillip T. Pecsok and Briar Pecsok (“Defendants”) and Does 1 through 25 alleging causes of action for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence.  Defendants filed their answer on October 10, 2022.

On August 24, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to compel initial responses to discovery.  Specifically, Defendants request that the court compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set Two).  Defendants also seek monetary sanctions of $455.34.

Plaintiff has not filed any opposition.

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 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, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 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., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Discussion

On May 17, 2023, Defendants served on Plaintiff a Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set Two).  (Alami Decl., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff has not served responses. (Alami Decl., ¶ 6.)

Defendants need show nothing more.  The motion to compel is granted.

Defendants’ requests for sanctions against Plaintiff are granted.  The Court awards sanctions in the amount of $455.34, calculated as 2 hours of attorney work, multiplied by the attorney’s rate of $160.17 per hour, one hour of legal assistant work, multiplied by the legal assistant’s rate of $75 per hour, plus the filing fee of $60 per motion.  (See Alami Decl., ¶ 7.)

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide verified, code-compliant responses, without objections, to Defendants’ Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set Two) within 30 days of the notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions. Plaintiff and counsel of record David Azizi, Esq. are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Defendants in the total amount of $455.34 within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party to give notice.