Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV34534, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34534    Hearing Date: January 4, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff Eliezer Molina (“Plaintiff”) brought a personal injury cause of action against Defendants Pacific Gateway Transportation, Inc. and Heliodoro Molina (collectively “Defendants”).  Plaintiff alleges he was hit by a truck driven by Defendant Molina.

On July 14, 2022, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Molina.  (Declaration of Jackson ¶ 2; Exhibit “A”.)  On September 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Molina to serve full and complete verified answers, without objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set One.  Plaintiff also requests the Court award monetary sanctions against Defendant Molina and his attorney in the sum of $2,340.00.

On December 19, 2022, Defendant Molina filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion.  No reply has been filed.

Having reviewed Petitioner’s Motion and Defendant Molina’s Opposition, the Court rules as follows.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          “Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party . . . .”  (CCP § 2030.260(a).)  The propounding party on a set of interrogatories may agree to extend the time for service beyond that 30 days.  (CCP § 2030.270.)  If the propounded party does not respond in the appropriate amount of time, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses.  (CCP § 2030.290(b).)  Where a party fails to timely provide a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may compel a response to its interrogatories, without need to meet and confer with opposing counsel.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants¿(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)  Further, “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives . . . any¿objection¿to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . .¿.”¿¿(CCP § 2030.290.) 

            Under CCP § 2023.030(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.”  Also, “[t]he 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.”  (CCP § 2030.290(c).)  “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought” and the motion must “be supported by a memorandum. . .and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanctions sought.”¿(CCP § 2023.040.)¿ 

III.      DISCUSSION

          On July 14, 2022, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Molina.  (Declaration of Jackson ¶ 2; Exhibit “A”.)  Responses were due on August 16, 2022, pursuant to CCP § 2030.260(a).  (Jackson Decl. ¶ 5.)  To this date, Defendant has failed to serve responses.  (Ibid.)  Consequently, Plaintiff moves to compel responses.  (Id. ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions against Defendant Molina and his counsel in the amount of $2,340.00 calculated as follows: six hours of work (four hours in pursuit of this matter and two hours drafting any reply) at an hourly billing rate of $360.00 plus $180.00 for filing this motion. 

          In opposition, Defendant Molina contends the following. 

          First, Defendant Molina is in the process of providing responses before the hearing on January 4, 2023.  Second, Defendant Molina did not provide responses earlier because of inadvertence and excusable neglect by the associate responsible for handling the file.  (Declaration of Hitchcock ¶ 5.) Third, imposing sanction would be unjust as the failure to timely provide responses was caused by inadvertence and excusable neglect, and Plaintiff waived his request for sanctions.  (Hitchcock Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7; Exhibit “A”.)  On December 12, 2022, Plaintiff agreed in an email to waive his request for sanctions contained in the present motion.  (Hitchcock Decl. ¶ 7; Exhibit “A”.)  

          Despite his assurance that he is in the process of providing responses before the hearing, Defendant Molina has not provided responses to this date. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(b).  The Court orders Defendant Molina to provided verified responses complaint with CCP §§ 2030.210(a) and 2030.220 without objection within twenty (20) days of this ruling. 

          Further, the Court finds the imposition of sanctions unjust because Plaintiff agreed in the email on December 12, 2022 to waive his request for sanctions contained in the present motion and there are no conditions attached to the waiver of sanctions.  (Ibid.)  Therefore, the Court declines to award monetary sanctions. 

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Defendant Molina to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(b).

          The Court orders Respondent to provide verified responses to the interrogatories compliant with CCP §§ 2030.210(a) and 2030.220 without objection within twenty (20) days of this ruling.

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.