Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 22STCV05858, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV05858 Hearing Date: March 21, 2023 Dept: 31
MOTION TO COMPEL Special Interrogatories
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to provide verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, without objection, is GRANTED.
The Court also GRANTS
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,900.00 in
favor of Plaintiff and her counsel of record, and against Defendant and his
counsel of record.
Background
On February 16, 2022, Plaintiff Dohee Kim filed a Complaint
against Defendant Daejoong Ji and Does 1 to 10 for:
1)
Sexual Assault and Battery;
2)
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
3)
Hostile Work Environment;
4)
Sexual Harassment; and
5)
Failure to Pay All Wages Timely Upon Separation.
On February 15,
2023, Plaintiff filed this instant Motion to Compel Responses to Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Sanctions.
No opposition or
reply has been filed.
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. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.010, 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.28;¿Sinaiko¿Healthcare
Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.)¿
Discussion
Request to Compel SROGS
On December 07, 2022, the parties held an Informal Discovery Conference at which defense counsel agreed to provide responses to the second set of interrogatories in full without objection. (Min. Or. 12/07/22.)
Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer email requesting a status update on the discovery request on January 10, 2023. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff asserts that as of the filing of this instant motion, Defendant has failed to produce responses to Special Interrogatories (SROGS), Set Two.
Plaintiff now requests a Court Order compelling Defendant to serve verified Responses to SROGS, Set Two without objection, and that Defendant and his Counsel of Record pay Sanctions in the sum of $4,000.00 to Plaintiff and her counsel.
Given that Defendant was served with SROGS, Set Two on September 16, 2022, and responses were due October 18, 2022 and Defendant agreed to provide responses, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request. (See Nguyen Decl. Es. A-C.)
Request for Sanctions
“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. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”
(Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2023.040.)
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is properly
noticed against Defendant and his counsel of record, Law Offices
of John H. Oh & Associates, in the sum of $4,000.00. Moreover, sanctions
under section 2031.00 are mandatory unless the Court finds Defendant acted with
substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the
sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300 subs. (c).) Defendant failed to
respond to the motion or show why imposing sanctions would be unjust.
Accordingly, the Court agrees that sanctions are warranted. However, the Court
finds the fees request excessive.
Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is $600.00
per hour and counsel spent 2.0 hours reviewing and revising the documents filed
in support of the motion. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 10.) A law clerk whose billing rate
is $250.00 per hour spent 4.0 hours drafting and revising the motion and the
documents filed in support of the motion. (Id. ¶ 11.)
This is a simple motion to compel with no
opposition papers and the hours billed are excessive. The Court credits
Plaintiff’s counsel 1.0 hour of work billed at a rate of $600.00 and the law
clerk with 2.0 hours of work billed at rate of $250.00 per hour.
In total, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $1,900.00 against Defendant and its counsel of record in favor of Plaintiff and her counsel.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to provide verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, without objection, is GRANTED.
The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,900.00 in favor of Plaintiff and her counsel of record, and against Defendant and his counsel of record.
Moving party to give notice.