Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV18254, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV18254    Hearing Date: August 30, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

ERIK CLARKE,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

GREGORY ALAN TULLIUS,

 

                   Defendant(s),

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 21STCV18254

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL VEHICLE INSPECTION

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

August 30, 2022

 

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On May 14, 2021, Plaintiff Erik Clarke commenced this action against Defendant Gregory Alan Tullius for motor vehicle and general negligence based on a motor vehicle accident.

On August 4, 2022, Defendant filed the instant unopposed motion to compel inspection of the subject vehicle.

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

“Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by¿Chapter¿2 (commencing with¿Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with¿Section 2019.010), by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” (CCP § 2031.010(a).)

“A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on¿the demanding party's behalf, to inspect and to photograph, test, or sample any tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” (CCP § 2031.010(c).)

III.     DISCUSSION

Defendant moves the Court to compel Plaintiff to produce the subject vehicle, a 2013 BMW 640i, License #6ZYC660, for inspection within 30 days from the date of this motion at 1329 E. 28th Street Signal Hills, CA 90755. Defendant also requests sanctions.

Defendant has propounded multiple vehicle inspection requests on Plaintiff and Plaintiff has not objected to the notices, has failed to produce the vehicle, and has failed to provide alternative dates for inspection. (Tsymbaloff Decl., ¶¶3-19, Exhs. A-J.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff must produce the subject vehicle for inspection within 30 days of this order.

Sanctions are mandatory. (See CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).) Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount $760 of for 4 hours of work preparing a meet and confer e-mail to Plaintiff and writing the instant motion to compel at the rate of $175 per hour and a $60 filing fee. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $1,557.50 for expert fees incurred for the missed inspection. (Tsymbaloff Decl., ¶21.) The Court finds the amount requested reasonable and awards sanctions in the amount requested.

IV.     CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion is GRANTED and sanctions are ordered in the amount requested.

Moving party to give notice.

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.