Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 20STCV49702 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV49702, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49702 Hearing Date: December 7, 2022 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: December 7, 2022 TRIAL DATE: February 28, 2023

CASE: Hermozo Textile, LLC v. Trendy JS’, et al.

CASE NO.: 20STCV49702

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES – GENERAL; FORM INTERROGATORIES – LIMTED CIVIL, AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: (1)(2) Plaintiff Hermozo Textile, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1)(2) Defendant Hun Young An

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for breach of contract filed on December 29, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay for fabric goods sold by Plaintiff and accepted by Defendants.

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (Set One), and to compel responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED in the amount of $252.87.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories – General is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories – Limited Civil is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with the Motions to Compel Responses to Interrogatories is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 20 days of the date of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (Set One)

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to Requests for Production (Set One) Propounded to Defendant Hun Young An, and for sanctions.

Legal Standard

When a party to whom an inspection demand is directed fails to respond under Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b), a party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. A party who fails to provide timely responses waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that must be shown is that a set of requests for production was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response has been served. (Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

Analysis

On July 21, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant Hun Young An with Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production (Declaration of Nico N. Tabibi ISO Mot. ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Defendant’s responses were therefore due on August 26, 2022. (Id.) Defendant did not respond to the propounded discovery. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.)

Defendant has responded to this motion contending that responses have since been served on Plaintiff. In reply, Plaintiff contends that these responses are inadequate because they consist entirely of objections, which have been waived, and the statement “See attachments provided by defendants before,” when no attachments were provided. (See Supplemental Declaration of Nico N. Tabibi ISO Reply Exh. A.) The Court retains the authority to hear a motion to compel initial responses even when untimely responses have been served. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409.) The Court is entitled to compel responses without objection if it finds that no legally valid responses have been provided. (Id. at 409.) Here, Defendant has provided responses consisting entirely of objections, which have been waived because no response was timely served, and a non-responsive statement “See attachments provided by defendants before.” These responses are not code-compliant on their face. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling code-compliant responses without objections.

Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $252.87for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in connection with this motion.

Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (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. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300 (c); 2031.310(h).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if 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.” (Id.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “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.”

Here, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $252.87, representing one half-hour of attorney time at $475 per hour, plus $61.50 in filing fees. (Tabibi Decl. ¶ 4.) The Court finds the requested attorney’s fees and costs to be reasonable and will therefore award the requested sanctions.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 20 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with this motion is GRANTED in the amount of $252.87.

Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Form Interrogatories – Limited Civil, and Special Interrogatories, and for sanctions.

Three Motions in One

Multiple motions should not be combined into a single filing.¿(See¿Govt. Code,¿§ 70617(a)(4) [setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing];¿see¿also¿Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter Group 2011)¿[“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”].)

Here, Plaintiff improperly combined three motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Form Interrogatories – Limited Civil, and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and into one filing. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to pay an additional $120.00 in filing fees within 10 days of the date of this order to have the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories –Limited Civil and Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories heard. The Court’s ruling on the additional motions is conditioned upon Plaintiff’s payment of these filing fees.

Legal Standard

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, a party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that must be shown is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response has been served. (Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

Analysis

On July 21, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant Hun Young An with Plaintiff’s discovery requests (Declaration of Nico N. Tabibi ISO Mot. ¶ 2, Exhs. 1-3.) Defendant’s responses were therefore due on August 26, 2022. (Id.) Defendant did not respond to the propounded discovery. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.)

Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $252.87 against Defendant An for failure to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories.

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c); 2030.300(d).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if 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.” (Id.)

Here, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $252.87, representing one half-hour of attorney time at $475 per hour, plus $61.50 in filing fees. (Tabibi Decl. ¶ 4.) However, as Plaintiff improperly combined multiple motions into a single filing, the Court finds that imposition of sanctions in connection with these motions would be unjust. The Court therefore declines to award the requested sanctions.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories – General is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories – Limited Civil is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 20 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions in connection with these motions is DENIED.

CONCLUSION:

For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED in the amount of $252.87.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories – General is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories – Limited Civil is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with the Motions to Compel Responses to Interrogatories is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 20 days of the date of this order.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2022 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.