Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 21STCV06628 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV06628, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV06628 Hearing Date: December 19, 2022 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: December 19, 2022 TRIAL DATE: March 14, 2023

CASE: Tim Arasheben v. Panavision, Inc.

CASE NO.: 21STCV06628

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

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES – GENERAL; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(3) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: (1)(2)(3) Defendant Panavision, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 12/15/22

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for breach of contract filed on February 18, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached a contract whereby Defendant was to lease camera equipment from Plaintiff for the purpose of sublease to third parties. Plaintiff alleges that he was entitled to 60% of the rental income, but that Defendant failed to do so. Plaintiff further alleges that when he exercised his right to terminate the contract and demand the return of his equipment pursuant to its terms, Defendant failed to return all the equipment.

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Requests for Production, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff’s Requests for Sanctions are granted in the total amount of $1,180, which is to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

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

Defendant moves to compel responses to Requests for Production (Set One) 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 August 2, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with Defendant’s First Set of Requests for Production (Declaration of Brian Foster ISO Mot. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s responses were therefore due on September 6, 2022. (Id ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel requested a 21-day extension on August 2, 2022, which was granted. (Id. ¶ 3, Exh. B.) The responses were therefore due on September 27, 2022. No responses were ever received. (Id. ¶ 8.) As Plaintiff has not responded to this motion, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to an order compelling responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production.

Request for Sanctions

Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $900 for 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 $900, representing 3.2 hours of attorney time spent meeting and conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel and preparing this motion at $280 per hour. (Foster Decl. ¶ 9.) According to Defendant, an additional 0.3 hours were actually billed in connection with this issue. (Id.) In light of Defendant’s counsel’s declaration setting forth the extensive efforts to meet and confer, despite having no obligation to do so under this statute, the Court finds that Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees is reasonable and will therefore award the requested sanctions.

Conclusion

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

Defendant’s request for sanctions in connection with this motion is GRANTED in the amount of $900.

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

Defendant moves to compel responses to Form Interrogatories – General, 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 August 2, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with Defendant’s Form Interrogatories – General (Declaration of Brian Foster ISO Mot. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s responses were therefore due on September 6, 2022. (Id ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel requested a 21-day extension on August 2, 2022, which was granted. (Id. ¶ 3, Exh. B.) The responses were therefore due on September 27, 2022. No responses were ever received. (Id. ¶ 8.) As Plaintiff has not responded to this motion, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to an order compelling responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories.

Request for Sanctions

Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $900 for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in connection with this motion.

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 $900, representing 3.2 hours of attorney time spent meeting and conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel and preparing this motion at $280 per hour. (Foster Decl. ¶ 9.) According to Defendant, an additional 0.3 hours were actually billed in connection with this issue. (Id.) However, as the record shows that the three sets of discovery at issue in these motions were treated as a unit, the Court declines to award sanctions for Defendant’s meeting and conferring efforts in connection with this motion, as doing so would result in an unwarranted double recovery. The Court will therefore award reduced sanctions in the amount of $140, representing 0.5 hours of attorney time in preparing this motion as distinct from the others.

Conclusion

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

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

Defendant’s request for sanctions in connection with this motion is GRANTED in the amount of $140.

Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One)

Defendant moves to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and for sanctions.

Legal Standard

Analysis

On August 2, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) (Declaration of Brian Foster ISO Mot. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s responses were therefore due on September 6, 2022. (Id ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel requested a 21-day extension on August 2, 2022, which was granted. (Id. ¶ 3, Exh. B.) The responses were therefore due on September 27, 2022. No responses were ever received. (Id. ¶ 8.) As Plaintiff has not responded to this motion, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to an order compelling responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories

Request for Sanctions

Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $900 for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in connection with this motion.

Here, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $900, representing 3.2 hours of attorney time spent meeting and conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel and preparing this motion at $280 per hour. (Foster Decl. ¶ 9.) According to Defendant, an additional 0.3 hours were actually billed in connection with this issue. (Id.) However, as the record shows that the three sets of discovery at issue in these motions were treated as a unit, the Court declines to award sanctions for Defendant’s meeting and conferring efforts in connection with this motion, as doing so would result in an unwarranted double recovery. The Court will therefore award reduced sanctions in the amount of $140, representing 0.5 hours of attorney time in preparing this motion as distinct from the others.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED.

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

Defendant’s request for sanctions in connection with this motion is GRANTED in the amount of $140.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED.

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

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

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

Plaintiff’s Requests for Sanctions are granted in the total amount of $1,180, which is to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of this order.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 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.