Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV28275, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28275    Hearing Date: September 1, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On August 2, 2021 Plaintiff Reverie Obregon (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence against Defendant John Geyer (“Defendant”).

On January 27, 2022, Sherry Geyer (“Sherry”) filed, and the Court rejected, her application to become the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) of Defendant.

On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production of Documents (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One) (collectively the “Discovery”).

On June 27, 2022, Sherry filed, and the Court granted, her application to become the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) of Defendant.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

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, subd. (b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (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. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).”  The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

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.”

III.      DISCUSSION

          Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendant’s responses to the Discovery and for sanctions because he has failed to provide verified responses.  Plaintiff represents that Defendant served responses that were verified by his wife Sherry, but those responses were invalid because she had not been appointed as his GAL at the time the responses were served (and at the time the Motions were filed.)

          As set forth above, on June 27, 2022, the Court appointed Sherry as Defendant’s GAL. Accordingly, Sherry’s signature in the verifications for the Discovery is now proper and valid, and the Motions to Compel responses to the Discovery are now moot.

          As noted above, Plaintiff also moves the Court for sanctions against Defendant.  The Court finds that sanctions against Defendant are proper because Plaintiff was forced to bring these Motions in order to gain Defendant’s compliance with his discovery obligation.  Defendant represents in the Oppositions that he needed time to obtain the proof of incompetency after the Court’s initial denial of the GAL application, but Defendant fails to provide any evidence as to why it took six months to file a new GAL application and/or evidence that there was difficulty in obtaining the proof of incompetency.  Instead, the evidence shows that Plaintiff was required to file the instant Motions to gain Defendant’s compliance.  Plaintiff seeks $2,811.65 (representing 11 hours of work at a rate of $250/hour plus $61.65 filing fee) for each motion for a total of $11,246.60.  The Court finds that the amount sought by Plaintiff in sanctions is unreasonable, as the Motions were straightforward Motions.  The Court finds that $1,246.60 (representing 4 hours of work at a rate of $250/hour plus four $61.65 filing fees) in sanctions against Defendant are appropriate and reasonable.  Thus, Defendant is ordered to pay $1,246.60 in sanctions.

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s Motions are moot as to compelling responses to the Discovery.  Plaintiff’s Motion is Granted in part as to the sanctions.  Defendant is ordered to pay $1,246.60 in sanctions.

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’s 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.