Judge William D. Claster, Case 21-01223269 2022-11-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 21-01223269, Date: 2022-11-04 Tentative Ruling

1. Plaintiffs Isidro Araiza and Rogelio Araiza's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Responses to Requests to General Form Interrogatories, Employment Form Interrogatories, and Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Sets No. One, Against Defendants Park Court Homes Property MGMT, Barbara M. Churchill, and the Churchill Trust Dated July 23,2003; and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Defendants and Their Counsel in the Amount of $2,500.00
ROA 39

2.Plaintiffs Isidro Araiza and Rogelio Araiza's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Responses

Before the Court are three motions filed by Plaintiffs:

Motion to compel responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories
Motion to compel responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for production
Motion to deem admitted Plaintiffs’ requests for admission

Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that Defendants have never served any responses to the 13 sets of discovery at issue. However, it appears that Defendants served code-compliant responses to the requests for admissions on September 7, 2022 –after these motions were filed. Those responses are sufficient pursuant to CCP § 2033.280 to moot the request that all of the Requests be deemed admitted, although sanctions for these belated responses are mandatory. Indeed, Defendants’ counsel offered to pay sanctions in its correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel on September 7.

While Plaintiff accurately states that Defendants have not filed any oppositions to any of the motions, the Court is concerned that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to bring to the Court’s attention the fact that belated responses to the requests for admission were provided. Plaintiff is ordered to appear at the hearing (either in person or via Zoom) to explain why these responses were not brought to the Court’s attention as late as October 28, 2022 when Plaintiff filed its notice of non-opposition. Considering that Defendants requested but never received from Plaintiff a breakdown of actual costs related to the two motions, the Court awards sanctions of $500 against Defendant’s counsel, Andrea Paris Law, PC, for the motions pertaining to the requests for admission.

As to the other unopposed discovery motions, they are GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to respond to all interrogatories and requests for production, without objection, by December 5, 2022.

Plaintiffs request sanctions of $2,500 per motion based on attorney LaCour’s billing rate of $850 per hour. The Court believes this is too much for two reasons. First, per his declarations, LaCour includes anticipated time spent in preparing replies. Because Defendants have not filed oppositions, there is no need to review oppositions and prepare replies. Second, LaCour is the most senior attorney on the caption. A motion to compel when no responses have been served is a straightforward task better suited for a less expensive junior associate. Taking the foregoing into account, the Court will award Plaintiffs an additional $1,000 in sanctions against Defendants and their counsel of record, Andrea Paris Law, PC. All sanctions (totaling $1500) are to be paid by December 5, 2022.