NICHOLAS KIDD VS AMB PARK ONE AT LAX, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC10475    Hearing Date: August 13, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., August 13, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Kidd v. AMB Park One at LAX, LLC, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC10475 COMP. FILED: 11-13-19

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 04-12-21

MOTION C/O: 04-27-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant AMB Park One at LAX, LLC

RESP. PARTY: None

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

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant AMB Park One at LAX, LLC’s (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Request for Production, Set One, and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One, are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to Defendant’s discovery within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $270.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of notice 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 August 11, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of August 11, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On November 13, 2019, Plaintiff Nicholas Kidd (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants AMB Park One at LAX, LLC (“AMB”) and Angeles Olga Garcia (“Garcia”). On December 24, 2019, Defendant AMB filed an Answer.

On March 26, 2020, Defendant AMB filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Request for Production, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”). To date, no oppositions have been filed.

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Request for Production & Interrogatories

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 AMB served a Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff via regular mail on January 20, 2020. (Motions, Lee Decl., ¶¶ 3, Exhs. A.) Although not statutorily required, on March 19, 2020, Defendant AMB’s counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel an email regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, Exhs. B.) To date, Defendant AMB has not received any responses to the propounded discovery. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Thus, Defendant AMB is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff 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’s failure to respond to Defendant AMB’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant AMB’s counsel requests a total of $885.00 in sanctions, which consists of five hours of attorney time billed at $150.00 per hour, two filing fees of $60.00, and one parking fee of $15.00. (Motions, Lee Decl., ¶¶ 7.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical Motions and the lack of opposition and reply. Thus, Defendant AMB’s request is GRANTED in the amount of $270.00 based on one hour of attorney time and two filing fees. (Id.) Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant AMB Park One at LAX, LLC’s (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Request for Production, Set One, and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One, are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to Defendant’s discovery within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $270.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.