Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCP01720, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP01720    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Petitioner Mercury Insurance Company (“Petitioner”) filed this action on May 19, 2023 against Respondent Vanessa L. Jacques (“Respondent”). The Petition alleges, inter alia, that “Petitioner, MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, respectfully petitions the court to assign a case number to this action for the purpose of hearing motions to enforce discovery, including motions to compel responses to written discovery pursuant to Insurance Code §11580.2(f).”

Petitioner indicates that on June 15, 2022, Petitioner served Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, and Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set No. One on Respondent. (Schubert Decls., ¶ 3, Exs. A.) Petitioner’s counsel states that “[t]he actual responses were due on July 19, 2022,” and that “Respondent did not serve responses within the original due date. Respondent never requested an extension of time in which to respond.” (Schubert Decls., ¶¶ 4-5.) Petitioner’s counsel further states that “[o]n August 1, 2022; September 29, 2022; and April 25, 2023, respectively, I wrote to Respondent’s counsel, indicating that the responses were outstanding and overdue…These letters also provided an extension of time to respond to any and all outstanding discovery within fifteen (15) days from the date stated on the aforesaid letters.” (Schubert Decls., ¶ 6, Exs. B.) Petitioner’s counsel states that as of the date of the preparation of the motions (which were filed on July 19, 2023), Respondent’s responses to the discovery had not been received by Petitioner’s counsel’s office. (Schubert Decls., ¶ 8.)  

On November 8, 2023, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) in this matter. The Court’s November 8, 2023 minute order provides, inter alia, that “Defendant is to provide discovery within forty-five (45) days. On the Court’s own motion, the Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not ‘Further Discovery’) scheduled for 11/29/2023, Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not ‘Further Discovery’) scheduled for 11/29/2023, and Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not ‘Further Discovery’) scheduled for 11/29/2023 are advanced to this date and continued to 01/25/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 50 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.” In addition, on November 9, 2023, Petitioner filed a notice of ruling indicating, inter alia, that “[a]t the IDC, Defendant/Respondent was ordered to provide satisfactory responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Request to Produce within 45 days, December 23, 2023. The three Motions to Compel Discovery Responses set on November 29, 2023, are continued to January 25, 2023, at 10:00a.m. in Department 50.”   

Petitioner now moves for an order compelling Respondent to respond within fifteen days, without objections, to the (1) Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, (2) Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, and (3) Demands for Production of Documents, Set No. One propounded to Respondent. Petitioner also seeks monetary sanctions against “Respondent and/or Respondent’s attorney of record, Ron A. Rosen Janfaza, Esq.” in connection with each of the motions. The motions are unopposed.

Discussion

As an initial matter, Petitioner seeks an order “compelling [Respondent] to respond within fifteen (15) days, without objections, to the Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, propounded to [Respondent]…” (Mot at p. 2:2-4.) Petitioner also seeks an order “compelling [Respondent] to respond within fifteen (15) days, without objections, to the Judicial Council Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, propounded to [Respondent]…” (Mot. at p. 2:2-4.) In addition, Petitioner seeks an order “compelling [Respondent] to respond within fifteen (15) days, without objections, to the Demands for Production of Documents, Set No. One, propounded to [Respondent]…” (Mot. at p. 2:3-5.)

As set forth above, the Court’s November 8, 2023 minute order provides that “Defendant is to provide discovery within forty-five (45) days.”[1] The Court notes that it does not issue orders to comply with its orders, so no further order is necessary or appropriate as to Petitioner’s motions to compel responses.

In addition, in connection with each of the motions, Petitioner seeks “an order that…Respondent and/or Respondent’s attorney of record, Ron A. Rosen Janfaza, Esq., pay monetary sanctions and attorney’s fees to said moving party within fifteen (15) days in the sum of $761.65 for the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by the moving party in connection with this proceeding.” (Mots. at p. 2:4-8.)

Petitioner cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), which provides that “[m]isuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:…(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”

            Petitioner asserts that “[h]ere, the Respondent has not responded to [Interrogatories and Demands for Production of Documents] which [are] an authorized method of discovery per Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.010. Due to Respondent’s lack of response, Petitioner had to file this motion to compel responses to [Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, and Demands for Production of Documents], which required attorney time and court expenses.” (Mots. at pp. 4:25-5:2; 5:1-4.) 

            As set forth above, Petitioner’s counsel indicates that on June 15, 2022, Petitioner served Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, and Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set No. One on Respondent. (Schubert Decls., ¶ 3, Exs. A.) As discussed, Petitioner’s counsel states that “[t]he actual responses were due on July 19, 2022,” and that “Respondent did not serve responses within the original due date. Respondent never requested an extension of time in which to respond.” (Schubert Decls., ¶¶ 4-5.) After the parties participated in an IDC, the Court ordered that “Defendant is to provide discovery within forty-five (45) days.” (See November 8, 2023 Minute Order.)

            Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of any opposition to the instant motions, the Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated good cause for the requested sanctions against “Respondent and/or Respondent’s attorney of record, Ron A. Rosen Janfaza, Esq.”

            Petitioner’s counsel states that the “costs of preparation and making” of each motion is $761.65. (Schubert Decls., ¶ 10.) The Court finds that this amount is reasonable. Therefore, the Court will grant monetary sanctions in the total amount of $2,284.95 ($761.65 x 3 motions).

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motions to compel responses to Petitioner’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, and Demands for Production of Documents, Set No. One are denied as moot.

Petitioner’s requests for sanctions are granted. “Respondent and/or Respondent’s attorney of record, Ron A. Rosen Janfaza, Esq.” is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,284.95 to Petitioner within 30 days of the date of this Order.

Petitioner is ordered to provide notice of this Order.

DATED:  January 25, 2024                           

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court