Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV39937, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39937    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 October 29, 2021, Annie Gombeaud (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Petco Animal Supplies Stores Inc. (“Defendant”) for negligence arising out of a slip and fall incident at a Petco in Los Angeles on February 25, 2019.

On July 19, 2022, Defendant served Special Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Low ¶ 2; Exhibit “A”.)  On September 9, 2022, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to CCP § 2030.010, et. seq. to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One and require Plaintiff and her counsel to pay monetary sanctions in the sum of $540.00.

The motion is set to be heard on January 4, 2023.  Having reviewed Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, 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, CCP § 2030.290, 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. “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 19, 2022, Defendant served Special Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Low ¶ 2; Exhibit “A”.)  Responses were due on August 23, 2022. (Low Decl., ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff never served the responses, so Defendant mailed Plaintiff’s counsel a letter on August 25, 2022 to inquire as to the status of the discovery responses. (Id. ¶ 4-5; Exhibit “B”.)  To this date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s meet and confer efforts. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendant now moves to compel verified responses without objection.  Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the motion pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(b) and orders Plaintiff to provide verified responses to the interrogatories compliant with CCP §§ 2030.210(a) and 2030.220 without objection within fourteen (14) days of this ruling.

          Defendant also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $540.00 calculated as follows: attorney’s fees in the amount of $480.00 (for 1.6 hours spent preparing and bringing this motion at the hourly rate of $300.00) plus filing fee of $60.00. (Id. ¶ 6.)  The Court does not find that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Therefore, the Court awards monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.030(a) and 2030.290(c) in the reduced amount of $360.00 payable by Plaintiff and her counsel within ten (10) days of this ruling to Defendant’s counsel. 

IV.      CONCLUSION

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

          The Court orders Plaintiff to provide verified responses to the interrogatories compliant with CCP §§ 2030.210(a) and 2030.220 without objection within fourteen (14) days of this ruling.

          The Court orders Plaintiff and her attorney to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $360.00 within ten (10) days of this ruling to Flesher, Schaff & Schroeder, Inc.

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            BACKGROUND

On October 29, 2021, Annie Gombeaud (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Petco Animal Supplies Stores Inc. (“Defendant”) for negligence arising out of a slip and fall incident at a Petco in Los Angeles on February 25, 2019.

On July 19, 2022, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Low ¶ 2; Exhibit “A”.  On September 9, 2022, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to CCP § 2030.010, et. seq. to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and require Plaintiff and her counsel pay monetary sanctions in the sum of $330.00.

The motion is set to be heard on January 4, 2023.  Having reviewed Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One 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, CCP § 2030.290, 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. “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 19, 2022, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Low ¶ 2; Exhibit “A”.)  Responses were due on August 23, 2022. (Low Decl., ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff never served the responses, so Defendant mailed Plaintiff’s counsel a letter on August 25, 2022 to inquire as to the status of the discovery responses. (Id. ¶ 4-5; Exhibit “B”.)  To this date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s meet and confer efforts. (Id. ¶ 6.)  Defendant now moves to compel verified responses without objection.  Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the motion pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(b) and orders Plaintiff to provide verified responses to the interrogatories compliant with CCP §§ 2030.210(a) and 2030.220 without objection within fourteen (14) days of this ruling.

          Defendant also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $330.00 calculated as follows: attorney’s fees in the amount of $270.00 (for .9 hours spent preparing and bringing this motion at the hourly rate of $300.00) plus filing fee of $60.00. (Id. ¶ 6.)  The Court does not find that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Therefore, the Court awards monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.030(a) and 2030.290(c) in the amount of $330.00 payable by Plaintiff and her counsel within ten (10) days of this ruling to Defendant’s counsel.

IV.        CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(b).

          The Court orders Plaintiff to provide verified responses to the interrogatories compliant with CCP §§ 2030.210(a) and 2030.220 without objection within fourteen (14) days of this ruling.

          The Court orders Plaintiff and her attorney to pay monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.030(a) and 2030.290(c) in the amount of $330.00 within ten (10) days of this ruling to Flesher, Schaff & Schroeder, Inc.

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On October 29, 2021, Annie Gombeaud (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Petco Animal Supplies Stores Inc. (“Defendant”) for negligence arising out of a slip and fall incident at a Petco in Los Angeles on February 25, 2019.

On July 19, 2022, Defendant served Request for Production, Set One on Plaintiff.  (Declaration of Low ¶ 2; Exhibit “A”.)  On September 9, 2022, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to CCP § 2031.010, et. seq. to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Request for Production, Set One and require Plaintiff and her counsel pay monetary sanctions in the sum of $300.00.

The motion is set to be heard on January 4, 2023.  Having reviewed Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Request for Production, Set One, the Court rules as follows.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          “Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand . . . .”  (CCP § 2031.260(a).)  The party demanding inspection, copying, testing, or sampling and the responding party may agree to extend the time for service beyond that 30 days. (CCP §  2031.270.)  The demanding party may seek an order compelling a response when there has not been a timely response to the request for production. (CCP § 2031.300.)  Further, “[t]he party to whom the demand…is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection of work product . . . .” (CCP § 2031.300).)

          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, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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 § 2031.300(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 19, 2022, Defendant served Request for Production, Set One on Plaintiff.  (Declaration of Low ¶ 2; Exhibit “A”.)  Responses were due on August 23, 2022.  (Low Decl., ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff never served the responses, so Defendant mailed Plaintiff’s counsel a letter on August 25, 2022 to inquire as to the status of the discovery responses.  (Id. ¶ 4-5; Exhibit “B”.)  To this date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s meet and confer efforts.  (Id. ¶ 6.)  Defendant now moves to compel verified responses without objection.  Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the motion pursuant to CCP § 2031.300 and orders Plaintiff to provide verified responses pursuant to CCP §§ 2031.210 without objection within fourteen (14) days of this ruling.

          Defendant also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $300.00 calculated as follows: attorney’s fees in the amount of $240.00 (for .8 hours spent preparing and bringing this motion at the hourly rate of $300.00) plus filing fee of $60.00.  (Id. ¶ 6.)  The Court does not find that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  Therefore, the Court awards monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.030(a) and 2031.300(c) in the amount of $300.00 payable by Plaintiff and her counsel within ten (10) days of this ruling to Defendant’s counsel.

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Request for Production, Set One is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2031.300.

          The Court orders Plaintiff to provide verified responses pursuant to CCP §§ 2031.210 without objection within fourteen (14) days of this ruling.

          The Court orders Plaintiff and her attorney to pay monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.030(a) and 2031.300(c) in the amount of $300.00 within ten (10) days of this ruling to Flesher, Schaff & Schroeder, Inc.

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.