Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV15366, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15366    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiffs Brent Evans (“Evans”) and Style Squared, LLC (“Style Squared”) (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on May 9, 2022 against Defendants Sophia Jin and Colorish, LLC dba Indigo Rose.

Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint on April 3, 2023, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) breach of contract, and (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

On June 2, 2023, Colorish, LLC (“Colorish”) served Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Evans and Style Squared. (Bell Decls., ¶ 2, Exs. 1-2.) Colorish states that the due date for the responses was July 5, 2023. (Bell Decls., ¶ 3.) As of the filing of Colorish’s counsel’s declarations in support of instant motions, Colorish’s counsel had not received any responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set One served on Evans and Style Squared. (Bell Decls., ¶ 5.)

Colorish’s counsel notes that on November 8, 2023, Colorish filed an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) Statement in advance of a November 15, 2023 IDC. (Bell Decls., ¶ 11, Exs. 6.) Colorish’s November 8, 2023 IDC Statement states, inter alia, that “Defendants served…1^st special interrogatories (2 sets) on June 2, 2023. Plaintiffs failed to respond at all, requested no extension…” (Ibid.) On November 15, 2023, an IDC was held in this matter. (Bell Decls., ¶ 12.) The Court’s November 15, 2023 minute order provides, inter alia, “[i]n open court, the Informal Discovery Conference is held. The discovery issues were not resolved.”

Colorish now moves for an order compelling Evans to respond to Colorish’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, served on him on June 2, 2023, without objection. Colorish also moves for an order compelling Style Squared to respond to Colorish’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, served on it on June 2, 2023, without objection. Colorish seeks monetary sanctions in connection with each of the motions. The motions are unopposed.[1]

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (b), “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:…(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” In addition, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) 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 Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) 

The Court finds that the evidence demonstrates that Evans and Style Squared did not timely serve responses to the subject Special Interrogatories, Set One served on them. As set forth above, the instant motions are unopposed. Thus, Evans and Style Squared have not provided any evidence demonstrating that they responded to the subject Special Interrogatories, Set One. Therefore, the Court finds that Colorish is entitled to an order compelling responses, without objections, to Colorish’s Special Interrogatories, Set One served on Evans. In addition, the Court finds that Colorish is entitled to an order compelling responses, without objections, to Colorish’s Special Interrogatories, Set One served on Style Squared.

Lastly, Colorish requests monetary sanctions against Evans and his counsel, jointly and severally, in connection with the motion pertaining to Evans. In addition, Colorish requests monetary sanctions against Style Squared and its counsel, jointly and severally, in connection with the motion pertaining to Style Squared.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.” (Emphasis added.) Because the instant motions are unopposed, the Court denies Colorish’s requests for sanctions in connection with the motions.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Colorish’s motions are granted.

The Court orders Evans to serve complete verified responses, without objections, to Colorish’s Special Interrogatories, Set One within 30 days of notice of this order.

The Court orders Style Squared to serve complete verified responses, without objections, to Colorish’s Special Interrogatories, Set One within 30 days of notice of this order.

Colorish’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied.

///

///

Colorish is ordered to give notice of this order.

DATED:  January 4, 2024                              ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court