Judge Thomas Falls, Case 21STCV10402 2022-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21STCV10402, Date: 2022-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10402 Hearing Date: November 22, 2022 Dept: R

ALONSO RIVERA v. QUEMETCO, INC., et al. (21STCV10402)

______________________________________________________________________________

(1) Defendant Quemetco’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatory Responses

Responding Party: Unopposed.

(2) Defendant Quemetco’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Supplemental Document Demand Responses.

Responding Party: Unopposed.

Tentative Ruling

(1) Defendant Quemetco’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatory Responses is GRANTED.

(2) Defendant Quemetco’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Supplemental Document Demand Responses is GRANTED.

Background

This is a premises liability case. Plaintiff Alonso Rivera (“Plaintiff”) alleges Defendants negligently maintained and inspected the premises located at 1031 Segovia Circle in the city of Placentia (“Subject Premises”) and the machinery and large containers located on the Subject Premises so as to allow oil and liquid to accumulate in the area near the docking and charging station of large containers (“Dangerous Condition”). On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff’s leg was crushed when, due to the Dangerous Condition, the large containers crushed Plaintiff’s leg. The foregoing incident caused serious, traumatic injuries to Plaintiff’s leg, body and psyche.

On March 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants Quemetco, Inc. (“Defendant Quemetco” or “Quemetco”).; John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and Does 3 to 100 for:

1. Negligence,

2. Premises Liability, and

3. Negligent hiring, Training, Retention, and Supervision

On October 24, 2022, Defendant filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatory Responses and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Supplemental Document Demand Responses.

As of November 17, 2022, no opposition has been filed.

(1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatory Responses

Legal Standard

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response … (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290.)

The party who fails to serve a timely response “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(a).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).)

Discussion

Defendant seeks an Order compelling Plaintiff to answer Defendant’s supplemental interrogatory requests. Defendant also seeks an award of sanctions in the amount of $1,000. In support of its motion, Defendant argues that it served the supplemental interrogatory upon Plaintiff on July 21, 2022, and sent reminder letters on August 23, 2022, and September 6, 2022, but Plaintiff did not respond. (Exhibs. A, B.) Defendant also requests sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.90(c).

Here, the Court finds that Defendant served its supplemental interrogatory upon Plaintiff on July 21, 2022. (Exhib. A.) Defense counsel claims it never received any responses, which commenced this motion. (Haffner Decl. ¶ 4.) Defense counsel states that Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to the letters sent regarding the necessity for Plaintiff to answer the outstanding discovery. (Haffner Decl. ¶ 4.) Although no informal attempts are required to obtain answers where no responses are received (Leach v. Superior Court, (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 906.), Defendant has nevertheless made good faith attempts to resolve this matter informally with opposing counsel, which attempts were futile, necessitating the instant motion. (Haffner Decl.; Exhib. B.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has waived his right to object to the supplemental interrogatory. Plaintiff has not served subsequent responses in substantial compliance with statute, nor can Plaintiff’s willful refusal to respond be deemed the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect for the purposes of relief from waiver of objections under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2030.290(a). Plaintiff fails to show these things as he has not filed an opposition. The party served with interrogatories has the burden of persuasion in establishing good cause why they should not be answered. (Coriell v. Superior Court, (1974) 39 Cal. App. 3d 487, 489.) Plaintiff cannot meet this burden.

Thus, the Court orders Plaintiff to serve verified answers to Defendant’s supplemental interrogatory, without objections within ten days of this hearing.

As for sanctions, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 2023.010, 2023.030, and 2030.290(c). Here, Defendant is the prevailing party, and it has shown that it has given multiple attempts to avoid this motion. Defendant claims that it has incurred legal fees and costs associated with compelling Plaintiff’s discovery requests and seeks an award of $1,000. However, Defendant has not provided a calculation or breakdown of the requested amount. Thus, utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $375 (1.5 hours at $250/hour). Sanctions are payable within 20 days of the date of the hearing.

(2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Supplemental Document Demand Responses

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.300, “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it … (b) the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” Additionally, a party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).)

Discussion

Defendant seeks an Order compelling Plaintiff to answer Defendant’s supplemental document demands. Defendant also seeks an award of sanctions in the amount of $1,000. In support of its motion, Defendant argues that it served the supplemental interrogatory upon Plaintiff on July 21, 2022, and sent reminder letters on August 23, 2022, and September 6, 2022, but Plaintiff did not respond. (Exhibs. A, B.) Defendant also requests sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(c).

Here, the Court finds that Defendant served its supplemental document demands upon Plaintiff on July 21, 2022. (Exhib. A.) Defense counsel claims it never received any responses, which commenced this motion. (Haffner Decl. ¶ 4.) Defense counsel states that Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to the letters sent regarding the necessity for Plaintiff to answer the outstanding discovery. (Haffner Decl. ¶ 4.) Although no informal attempts are required to obtain answers where no responses are received (Leach v. Superior Court, (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 906.), Defendant has nevertheless made good faith attempts to resolve this matter informally with opposing counsel, which attempts were futile, necessitating the instant motion. (Haffner Decl.; Exhib. B.)

Thus, the Court orders Plaintiff to serve verified answers to Defendant’s supplemental document demands, without objections within ten days of this hearing.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatory Responses is GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Supplemental Document Demand Responses is GRANTED. The Court awards a total of $750 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff to be paid to Defendant within 20 days of the date of the hearing.