KATHLEEN OVANDO, ET AL. VS GABRIELLA JEFFERSON

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC09808    Hearing Date: September 24, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., September 24, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Ovando et al. v. Jefferson COMPL. FILED: 10-23-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC09808 DISC. C/O: 03-22-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF CLAUDIA GARCIA’S VERIFIED RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF CLAUDIA GARCIA’S VERIFIED RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Gabriella Jefferson

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Gabriella Jefferson’s (1) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Garcia’s Verified Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Garcia’s Verified Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, are GRANTED. Plaintiff Garcia is ordered to provide verified responses to Defendant’s discovery requests within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $501.50 to be paid by Plaintiff Garcia to Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September 22, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of September 22, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On October 23, 2019, Plaintiffs Kathleen Ovando (“Ovando”) and Claudia Garcia (“Garcia”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Gabriella Jefferson (“Defendant”).

On December 6, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer. Plaintiff Ovando was dismissed from this action on February 28, 2020. An amended Answer was filed pursuant to the parties’ stipulation on May 22, 2020. (4/14/20 Stipulation to Amend Answer; 5/22/20 Amended Answer.)

On May 27, 2020, Defendant filed the instant (1) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Claudia Garcia’s Verified Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions (the “Interrogatories Motion”) and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Claudia Garcia’s Verified Responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions (the “Production Motion”) (collectively, the “Discovery Motions”).

On August 7, 2020, the Court scheduled the Discovery Motions for hearing for September 24, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (8/7/20 Minute Order.) That same day, Defendant gave Plaintiff notice of the scheduled hearing via email.

To date, no oppositions have been filed.

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Here, Defendant served Plaintiff Garcia with Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, on December 9, 2019. (Interrogatories Mot. & Production Mot., Lee Decl., ¶¶ 2, Exhs. A.) Due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s difficulty in locating Plaintiff Garcia, Defendant’s counsel granted Plaintiff’s counsel extensions on January 1, 2020, February 5, 2020, and March 2, 2020, to provide discovery responses. (Interrogatories Mot., Lee Decl., ¶¶ 3-5, Exhs. B-D; Production Mot., Lee Decl., ¶¶ 4-6, Exhs. B-D.) On April 1, 2020, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff Garcia’s counsel a letter stating that if no responses were received by April 17, 2020, judicial intervention and sanctions would be sought. (Interrogatories Mot., Lee Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. F; Production Mot., Lee Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. F.) The following day, Plaintiff Garcia’s counsel responded to Defendant’s counsel’s correspondence stating that despite his extensive efforts, Plaintiff Garcia refused to cooperate and remained incommunicado. (Interrogatories Mot., Lee Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. G; Production Mot., Lee Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. G.) As of the date of these Discovery Motions, Plaintiff Garcia has not provided any responses to the discovery requests. (Interrogatories Mot., Lee Decl., ¶ 10; Production Mot., Lee Decl., ¶ 11.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff Garcia to provide verified responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

B. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

The Court finds Plaintiff Garcia’s failure to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant’s counsel requests a total of $1,170.50 in sanctions based on 6 hours of attorney time billed at $143.75 per hour, two remote appearance fees of $94.00, and two filing fees of $60.00. (Interrogatories Mot., Lee Decl., ¶ 11; Production Mot., Lee Decl., ¶ 12.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical Motions and the lack of opposition and reply. The Court finds $501.50, based on two hours of attorney time, one remote appearance fee, and two filing fees, reasonable. Plaintiff Garcia is ordered to pay sanctions within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Gabriella Jefferson’s (1) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Garcia’s Verified Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Garcia’s Verified Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, are GRANTED. Plaintiff Garcia is ordered to provide verified responses to Defendant’s discovery requests within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $501.50 to be paid by Plaintiff Garcia to Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.