ALMA DELIA JIMENEZ VILLEGAS, ET AL. VS VANESSA MARIE VENTURA

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC02027    Hearing Date: March 30, 2021    Dept: 26

Villegas v. Ventura, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Vanessa Marie Montano Ventura’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories and Request For Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT PLAINTIFF PAY SANCTIONS OF $60.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs Alma Delia Jimenez Villegas (“Plaintiff”) and Luis Rey Perez Tapia filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Vanessa Marie Montano Ventura (“Defendant”) on February 25, 2019. Tapia was dismissed from the action on December 3, 2020.

On May 11, 2020, Defendant served Form Interrogatories on Plaintiff. (Motion, Faal Decl. ¶2 and Exh. A.) To date, Defendant has not received any verified responses to the discovery requests from Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶3-5.) Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery Responses on October 14, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to compel initial responses can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) Due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the written discovery, the Motion is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within twenty (20) days’ service of this Order.

Defendant’s failure to timely respond constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions are appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 and have been properly noticed. However, the amount sought is excessive under a lodestar calculation. The court previously granted sanctions in a virtually identical motion to Compel Production of Documents on January 12, 2021. Thus, Tte request for sanctions is granted against Defendant in the amount $60.00 in costs. (Motion, Faal Decl., ¶6.)

Conclusion

Defendant Vanessa Marie Montano Ventura’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories and Request For Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT PLAINTIFF PAY SANCTIONS OF $60.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice. 

Case Number: 19STLC02027    Hearing Date: January 13, 2021    Dept: 26

Villegas v. Ventura, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2025.450)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Vanessa Marie Ventura’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs Alma Delia Jimenez Villegas (“Plaintiff”) and Luis Rey Perez Tapia filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Vanessa Marie Ventura (“Defendant”) on February 25, 2019. Tapia was dismissed from the action on December 3, 2020. Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Attendance at Deposition on December 7, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a) states in relevant part:

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must also “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice” and “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (2).) A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted, unless the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Discussion

The motion is not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating that defense counsel reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel to resolve this discovery dispute without the Court’s intervention. Specifically, the declaration must state “that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).) Rather, the supporting declaration merely states that following the Plaintiff’s failure to appear at her properly noticed deposition on November 4, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion. (Motion, Faal Decl., ¶¶2-5 and Exhs. A-D.) The Motion cannot be granted without moving party’s demonstration of an adequate meet and confer effort.

The Court further notes that the deposition notice includes a request for production of documents. (Id. at Exh. A, Exh. A.) However, the Motion fails to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice,” as required under the moving statute.

In light of Defendant’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, the Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC02027    Hearing Date: January 12, 2021    Dept: 26

Villegas v. Ventura, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2031.300, 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Vanessa Marie Ventura’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff To Respond to Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT PLAINTIFF PAY SANCTIONS OF $260.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs Alma Delia Jimenez Villegas (“Plaintiff”) and Luis Rey Perez Tapia filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Vanessa Marie Ventura (“Defendant”) on February 25, 2019. Tapia was dismissed from the action on December 3, 2020.

On May 11, 2020, Defendant served Request for Production of Documents on Plaintiff. (Motion, Faal Decl. ¶2 and Exh. A.) To date, Defendant has not received any verified responses to the discovery requests from Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶3-5.) Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery Responses on October 14, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the written discovery, the Motion is GRANTED as to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to Request for Production of Documents, Set One within twenty (20) days’ service of this Order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)

The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond is a misuse of the discovery procedures. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, et seq.) The requested sanctions have been properly noticed but are excessive give the simplicity of this motions. Sanctions are appropriate in the amount of $260.00 based on one hour of attorney time billed at $20.00 per hour, plus a $60.00 filing fee. (Motions, Villegas Decl., ¶6.)

Therefore, Defendant Vanessa Marie Ventura’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT PLAINTIFF PAY SANCTIONS OF $260.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.