Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV28275, Date: 2022-09-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28275    Hearing Date: September 2, 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 June 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant’s responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for production of Documents (Set Two) (collectively the “Discovery”).

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.

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 any responses.  Defendant represents that he was unaware that there was outstanding Discovery until Plaintiff filed the instant Motions.  Defendant contends that while Plaintiff’s counsel represents sending a meet and confer email, Defendant did not receive that email, and the declaration in support shows that it was just a "case note.”  After Defendant found out about the outstanding discovery, he served responses to the same.

          In light of Defendant providing verified responses to the Discovery the Motions to Compel responses to the Discovery are now moot.

          As noted above, Plaintiff also moves the Court for sanctions against Defendant.  Contrary to Defendant’s contention, the email provided by Plaintiff shows that Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendant prior to filing the instant Motions.  (Peabody Decl., Exh. 6.) In addition, Plaintiff is not required to meet and confer prior to filing a motion to compel initial responses.  Here, the evidence provided shows that the Discovery was properly served on Defendant by mail and email, and that Defendant was unaware of the Discovery.  (Peabody Decls., Exhs. 4.)  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.  Plaintiff seeks $1,936.65 (representing 7.5 hours of work at a rate of $250/hour plus $61.65 filing fee) for each motion for a total of $3,873.3.  The Court finds that the amount sought by Plaintiff in sanctions is unreasonable, as the Motions were straightforward Motions.  The Court finds that $623.30 (representing 2 hours of work at a rate of $250/hour plus two $61.65 filing fees) in sanctions against Defendant are appropriate and reasonable.  Thus, Defendant is ordered to pay $623.30 in sanctions.  In light of the Court’s ruling, Defendant’s requests for sanctions against Plaintiff are denied.

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 $623.30 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.