Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 21STCV13652, Date: 2022-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV13652    Hearing Date: November 1, 2022    Dept: 31

MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL DISCOVERY 1) RPD AND 2) FROGS IS GRANTED 

Background 

The present action arises from the following facts. On or about June 5, 2018, Israel Julao (“Plaintiff”) and Fort Self Storage (“Defendant”) entered into an agreement whereby Defendant agreed to provide Plaintiff with a storage facility for the purposes of storing Plaintiff’s personal belongings in exchange for Plaintiff’s payment of a monthly storage fee. Plaintiff paid the required monthly storage fee until the beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic (“Pandemic”). Plaintiff requested Defendant defer the monthly rental payment until the end of the Pandemic as Plaintiff was experiencing financial difficulty, to which Defendant agreed. However, on November 11, 2020, Defendant seemingly withdrew such an oral agreement and sold Plaintiff’s personal belongings without notice to Plaintiff.

On April 9, 2021, Plaintiff initiated the present action by filing a Complaint against Defendant and Does 1 through 10. The operative Third Amended Complaint alleges: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Negligence; and (3) Conversion.

On August 05, 2022, Defendant filed two Motions to Compel Discovery to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Production, Set Two.

A notice of non-opposition was filed on October 27, 2022.

Legal Standard 

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.010, 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)  A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)  

¿If a propounding party moves for and obtains a court order compelling a response, the court shall impose monetary sanctions against the party failing to timely respond to interrogatories and demands for inspection unless that party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (CCP §§ 2030.010, 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.28;¿Sinaiko¿Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.)¿  

Discussion 

Compel Initial Discovery  

Defendant Fort Self Storage filed two motions seeking to compel discovery responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Two.

On May 26, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with the above-written discovery requests. (Cochran Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A, B.) Responses were due on June 29, 2022, but no responses were served despite Defense counsel sending multiple meet and confer emails in July. (Id. Ex. C, D.) To date no response has been served.

Therefore, the motions to compel are GRANTED. 

Sanctions  

Defense counsel seeks $810.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel, Ken Behzadi, for failing to respond to the discovery requests.

Defense counsel’s hourly rate is $250.00 per hour. 2.0 hours were incurred in trying to meet and confer with Plaintiff along with preparing the motions. Counsel an additional 1.0 hour spent attending the hearing plus $60.00 for the filing fee.

The Court finds that the amount requested is reasonable and awards $810.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. 

Conclusion 

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two is GRANTED. 

Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $810.00 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record. 

Defendant to give notice.