Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV42496, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42496    Hearing Date: September 21, 2022    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     September 21, 2022               TRIAL DATE: April 4, 2023

CASE:                         Creditor’s Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Chang Rae Jo

CASE NO.:                 21STCV42496           

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

(2)   MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               (1)(2) Plaintiff Creditor’s Adjustment Bureau, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1)(2) No response on eCourt as of September 19, 2022

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for breach of contract that was filed on November 17, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has failed to pay insurance premiums in association with a set of worker’s compensation insurance policies.

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to requests for production and to special interrogatories, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) is GRANTED. Defendant is to serve verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED. Defendant is to serve verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $673.92 in connection with each motion, for a total of $1,347.84 against Defendant. Payment is to be made to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days of the date of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production

            Plaintiff moves to compel responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production (Set One), and for sanctions in the amount of $1,873.92.

Legal Standard

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that must be shown is that a set of requests 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

            Plaintiff moves to compel responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (Set One) propounded to Defendant Chang Rae Jo. Plaintiff served its Requests for Production by mail on February 28, 2022. (Declaration of Kenneth J. Freed ISO Mot. ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) To date, Plaintiff has received no response to the Requests for Production. (Id. ¶ 4.) Per code, the deadline to respond was April 4, 2022. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses to the requests for production.

Request for Sanctions

            Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,873.92 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(d); 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.)

            Plaintiff’s counsel requests sanctions in the amount of $1,800 for the attorney’s fees incurred in connection with this motion, plus $73.92 in filing costs. Plaintiff’s counsel states that his hourly billing rate is $600, and that he incurred “in excess of one (1) hour” in connection with this motion. (Freed Decl. ¶¶ 2, 6.) However, at an hourly rate of $600, Plaintiff’s counsel has only accounted for one hour of attorney time, rather than the three hours that he claims to have billed. As Plaintiff’s counsel has only offered evidence of one hour of attorney time actually billed, the Court modifies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions to $673.92, accounting for one hour of attorney time at $600 per hour, plus $73.92 in filing costs.

Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories

            Plaintiff moves to compel responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One), and for sanctions in the amount of $1,873.92.

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

            Plaintiff moves to compel responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) propounded to Defendant Chang Rae Jo. Plaintiff served its Special Interrogatories by mail on February 28, 2022. (Declaration of Kenneth J. Freed ISO Mot. ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) To date, Plaintiff has received no response to the Requests for Production. (Id. ¶ 4.) Per code, the deadline to respond was April 4, 2022. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses to the special interrogatories.

Request for Sanctions

            Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,873.92 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 interrogatories of documents 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.)

            Plaintiff’s counsel requests sanctions in the amount of $1,800 for the attorney’s fees incurred in connection with this motion, plus $73.92 in filing costs. Plaintiff’s counsel states that his hourly billing rate is $600, and that he incurred “in excess of one (1) hour” in connection with this motion. (Freed Decl. ¶¶ 2, 6.) However, at an hourly rate of $600, Plaintiff’s counsel has only accounted for one hour of attorney time, rather than the three hours that he claims to have billed. As Plaintiff’s counsel has only offered evidence of one hour of attorney time actually billed, the Court modifies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions to $673.92, accounting for one hour of attorney time at $600 per hour, plus $73.92 in filing costs.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) is GRANTED. Defendant is to serve verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED. Defendant is to serve verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $673.92 in connection with each motion, for a total of $1,347.84 against Defendant. Payment is to be made to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days of the date of this order.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 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.