Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STLC09822, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC09822    Hearing Date: May 15, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     May 15, 2023                                     TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Stanford Neighborhood Association LLC v. Miranda Logistics Enterprise, Inc.

CASE NO.:                 20STLC09822           

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               (1)(2) Defendants/Cross-Complainants Miranda Logistics Enterprise, Inc., Grit & Gravel Inc, and United Pacific Waste

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1)(2) No response on eCourt as of 05/09/23

CASE HISTORY:

·         11/24/20: Complaint filed

·         02/09/21: Cross-Complaint filed as to Stanford Neighborhood Association, LLC; DGT Holdings LLC, and LA Catering Truck MFG, Inc.

·         02/26/21: First Amended Complaint filed.

·         04/09/21: Cross-Complaint filed as to Grit & Gravel Inc. and Miranda Logistics Enterprise, Inc.

·         07/01/21: Second Amended Complaint filed.

·         07/21/21: First Amended Cross Complaint filed as to Stanford Neighborhood Association, LLC; DGT Holdings LLC, and LA Catering Truck MFG, Inc.

·         08/09/21: First Amended Cross-Complaint filed as to Grit & Gravel Inc. and Miranda Logistics Enterprise, Inc.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for trespass, nuisance, negligence, and intentional interference with contract. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to comply with local zoning ordinances pertaining to a building materials salvage yard which they operate.

Defendants move to compel responses to form interrogatories (Set Six) and Requests for Production (Set Two) from Plaintiff, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Six) is GRANTED.

            Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (Set Two) is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses to all discovery referenced herein within 30 days of this order.

            Defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $980.

             Payment is to be made within 10 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Six)

            Defendants move to compel responses to form interrogatories (Set Six) propounded to Plaintiff, and for sanctions.

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 September 17, 2021, Defendant served Plaintiff with Defendant’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set Six) via email. (Declaration of Ross Steinbach ISO Mot. ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s responses were therefore due on October 19, 2021. As of today, more than a year and a half later, Plaintiff has not served any responses to these interrogatories. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendants are therefore entitled to an order compelling responses to these interrogatories.

//

Sanctions

            Defendants request sanctions in connection with this motion in the amount of $1,562.85.

            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 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).) Sanctions may be denied, however, 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, Defendants seek sanctions in the amount of $1,562.85. However, the Declaration of Law Clerk Ross Steinbach, responsible for preparing this motion, states that he only incurred two hours of billed time at a rate of $245 per hour in connection with this motion, with an additional hour anticipated. (Steinbach Decl. ¶ 6.) Although Defendants also produce the Declaration of Donald Velez in support of this motion, that declaration does not identify any attorney time actually billed specifically in connection with this motion. The Court declines to award sanctions in excess of the time which Defendants have shown was actually billed by Defendants’ counsel. Accordingly, the Court will award reduced sanctions in the amount of $490 in connection with this motion, reflecting the two hours actually billed.

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Six) is GRANTED.

            Defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $490.

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

            Defendants move to compel responses to requests for production (Set Two) propounded to Plaintiff, 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 June 3, 2021, Defendant served Plaintiff with Defendant’s Requests for Production (Set Two) via email. (Declaration of Ross Steinbach ISO Mot. ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s responses were therefore due on July 7, 2021. As of today, more than a year and a half later, Plaintiff has not served any responses to these interrogatories. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendants are therefore entitled to an order compelling responses to these requests.

Sanctions

            Defendants request sanctions in connection with this motion in the amount of $1,562.85.

            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, unless 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300 (c); 2031.310(h).)

            Here, Defendants seek sanctions in the amount of $1,562.85. However, the Declaration of Law Clerk Ross Steinbach, responsible for preparing this motion, states that he only incurred two hours of billed time at a rate of $245 per hour in connection with this motion, with an additional hour anticipated. (Steinbach Decl. ¶ 6.) Although Defendants also produce the Declaration of Donald Velez in support of this motion, that declaration does not identify any attorney time actually billed specifically in connection with this motion. The Court declines to award sanctions in excess of the time which Defendants have shown was actually billed by Defendants’ counsel. Accordingly, the Court will award reduced sanctions in the amount of $490 in connection with this motion, reflecting the two hours actually billed.

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (Set Two) is GRANTED.

            Defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $490.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Six) is GRANTED.

            Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (Set Two) is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses to all discovery referenced herein within 30 days of this order.

            Defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $980.

             Payment is to be made within 10 days of this order.

            Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  May 15, 2023                         ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.