This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/05/2021 at 01:46:59 (UTC).

PENNY WILLIAMS, ET AL. VS FLOR CABRERACHAVEZ

Case Summary

On 11/30/2020 PENNY WILLIAMS filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against FLOR CABRERACHAVEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9976

  • Filing Date:

    11/30/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

WILLIAMS PENNY

WILSON CHANDRA

Defendant

CABRERACHAVEZ FLOR

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

ZAKI ANDREW E.

Other Attorneys

YEAGER KENNETH C.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

9/8/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery)

9/8/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery)

Supplemental Declaration (name extension) - Supplemental Declaration OF ANDREW ZAKI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES: FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

8/16/2021: Supplemental Declaration (name extension) - Supplemental Declaration OF ANDREW ZAKI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES: FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

7/28/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery; Hearing on Motion to C...)

7/28/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery; Hearing on Motion to C...)

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses

7/15/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses

Reply (name extension) - Reply IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

7/16/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 06/18/2021

6/18/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 06/18/2021

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

6/18/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Compel discovery Responses and for Sanctions

6/3/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Compel discovery Responses and for Sanctions

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES: FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

4/26/2021: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES: FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

4/26/2021: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES: DEMAND FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

4/26/2021: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES: DEMAND FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Answer - Answer

1/14/2021: Answer - Answer

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

1/14/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

12/15/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Complaint - Complaint

11/30/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/30/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

9 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/04/2023
  • Hearing12/04/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2022
  • Hearing05/31/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Flor Cabrerachavez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery scheduled for 09/08/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 09/08/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2021
  • DocketSupplemental Declaration OF ANDREW ZAKI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES: FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; Filed by: Flor Cabrerachavez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Flor Cabrerachavez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery scheduled for 09/08/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery; Hearing on Motion to C...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2021
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery scheduled for 07/28/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 09/08/2021 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
20 More Docket Entries
  • 01/14/2021
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: Flor Cabrerachavez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Penny Williams (Plaintiff); As to: Flor Cabrerachavez (Defendant); Service Date: 12/08/2020; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 12/04/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/31/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Penny Williams (Plaintiff); Chandra Wilson (Plaintiff); As to: Flor Cabrerachavez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Penny Williams (Plaintiff); Chandra Wilson (Plaintiff); As to: Flor Cabrerachavez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Penny Williams (Plaintiff); Chandra Wilson (Plaintiff); As to: Flor Cabrerachavez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC09976 Hearing Date: September 8, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO COMPEL DISCOVERY: FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant\r\nFlor Cabrerachavez

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiffs Penny Williams and Chandra\r\nWilson

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 2030.290)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Flor Cabrerachavez’s Motion\r\nto compel Plaintiff Wilson to respond to Form Interrogatories and request for\r\nsanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff Wilson is ordered to serve verified responses\r\nwithout objections to the Form Interrogatories within thirty (30) days of\r\nnotice of this order. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the\r\namount of $360.00 to be paid by Plaintiff Wilson only. Sanctions are to be paid\r\nto Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: Filed on June 3 and July\r\n15, 2021 [ ] Late [ ]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: Filed on July\r\n16, 2021 [ ]\r\nLate [ ] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On November 30, 2020, Plaintiffs Penny Williams\r\n(“Williams”) and Chandra Wilson (“Wilson”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed\r\nthis action against Flor Cabrerachavez (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer\r\non January 14, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant filed a motion to compel responses to special\r\ninterrogatories and request for production of documents, as well as the instant\r\nMotion to Compel Discovery: Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions (the\r\n“Motion”) on April 26. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on June 3 and July 15.\r\nDefendant filed a reply brief on July 16.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

All three motions came up for hearing on July 28, 2021. At\r\nthat time, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel responses to the\r\nspecial interrogatories and request for production of documents as well as\r\nsanctions in the amount of $720.00. (7/28/21 Minute Order.) However, the Motion\r\nas to the Form Interrogatories was continued because Defendant did not submit a\r\nproof of service demonstrating that discovery set was properly served. (Id.)\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant filed a supplemental declaration on August 16,\r\n2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A. Form\r\nInterrogatories

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days\r\nafter service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom\r\ninterrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting\r\nparty may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ.\r\nProc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives the\r\nright to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product\r\nprotection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) There is no time limit\r\nfor a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on\r\nhearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020,\r\nsubd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required\r\nbefore filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc.,\r\n§ 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting,\r\nInc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390,\r\n411.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Defendant’s counsel served Plaintiff Wilson’s\r\ncounsel with Form Interrogatories on January 13, 2021 via email. (Mot., Zaki\r\nDecl., ¶ 3, Exh. A; 8/16/21 Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. B.) Defendant’s counsel sent\r\nPlaintiff Wilson’s counsel an email regarding the overdue responses on February\r\n28 and March 9, 2021. (Mot., Zaki Decl., ¶¶\r\n6-7, Exhs. B.) As of the date this Motion was filed, Plaintiff Wilson had not\r\nserved any responses to the discovery. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Thus,\r\nDefendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff Wilson to serve verified\r\nresponses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

B. Sanctions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a)\r\nprovides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a\r\nparty engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable\r\nexpenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that\r\nconduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or\r\nsubmit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010,\r\nsubd. (d).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds Plaintiff Wilson’s failure to respond to\r\nDefendant’s Form Interrogatories a misuse of the discovery process.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant seeks sanctions of $760.00 based on 3.5 hours\r\nof attorney time billed at $200.00 per hour plus one filing fee of $60.00.\r\n(Mot., Zaki Decl., ¶ 9.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the\r\nsimplicity of this Motion and the limited opposition. The Court finds $360.00,\r\nbased on 1.5 hours of attorney time and one filing fee, to be reasonable.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs’ counsel Kenneth Yeager\r\nfiled a declaration in opposition to this Motion explaining he did not provide\r\nany responses because his office lost contact and cooperation with Plaintiff\r\nWilson. (6/3/21 Yeager Decl., ¶ 2; 7/15/21 Yeager Decl., ¶ 2.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Sanctions are to be paid by\r\nPlaintiff Wilson only.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant\r\nFlor Cabrerachavez’s Motion to compel Plaintiff Wilson to respond to Form\r\nInterrogatories and request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff Wilson is\r\nordered to serve verified responses without objections to the Form\r\nInterrogatories within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant’s\r\nrequest for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $360.00 to be paid by\r\nPlaintiff Wilson only. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within\r\nthirty (30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'b'

Case Number: 20STLC09976 Hearing Date: July 28, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: (1)\r\nMOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(2)\r\nMOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY: FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(3)\r\nMOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY: DEMAND FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST\r\nFOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant\r\nFlor Cabrerachavez

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiffs Penny Williams and Chandra\r\nWilson

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION\r\nOF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Flor Cabrerachavez’s Motions\r\nto compel Plaintiff Chandra Wilson to serve responses to Special\r\nInterrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, are\r\nGRANTED. Plaintiff Wilson is ordered to serve verified responses without\r\nobjections within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant’s\r\nrequests for sanctions are also granted in the amount of $720.00 to be paid by\r\nPlaintiff Wilson only. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within\r\nthirty (30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

However, Defendant’s Motion to compel\r\nPlaintiff Wilson to respond to Form Interrogatories and request for sanctions\r\nis CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 8, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING\r\nSTREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing,\r\nDefendant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the issues noted\r\nherein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or\r\ndenied.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: Filed on June 3 and July\r\n15, 2021 [ ] Late [ ]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: Filed on July\r\n16, 2021 [ ]\r\nLate [ ] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On November 30, 2020, Plaintiffs Penny Williams\r\n(“Williams”) and Chandra Wilson (“Wilson”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed\r\nthis action against Flor Cabrerachavez (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer\r\non January 14, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel\r\nDiscovery Responses: Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions; (2)\r\nMotion to Compel Discovery: Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions; and\r\n(3) Motion to Compel Discovery: Demand for the Production of Documents and\r\nRequest for Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”). Plaintiffs filed an\r\nopposition on June 3 and July 15. Defendant filed a reply brief on July 16.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A. Request for Production & Interrogatories

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for\r\nproduction of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to\r\nwhom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does\r\nnot provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order\r\ncompelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b);\r\nCode Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to\r\nmake any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product\r\nprotection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses\r\nto interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing\r\ndiscovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd.\r\n(a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are\r\nrequired before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants\r\n(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Defendant states she served Plaintiff\r\nWilson with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for\r\nProduction of Documents on January 13, 2021 via email. (Motions, Zaki Decl., ¶¶\r\n3, Exhs. A.) However, the copy of the Form Interrogatories submitted in support\r\nof Defendant’s Motion does not include a proof of service demonstrating they were\r\nproperly served on Plaintiff Wilson. (See\r\nid.) Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff Wilson’s counsel an email\r\nregarding the overdue responses on February 28 and March 9, 2021. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7, Exhs. B.) As of the date these Motions were filed,\r\nPlaintiff Wilson had not served any responses to the discovery. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant is entitled\r\nto an order compelling Plaintiff Wilson to serve verified responses without\r\nobjections to the Special Interrogatories and Demand for Production of\r\ndocuments. (Code Civ.\r\nProc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) However,\r\nbecause no proof of service was included with the Form Interrogatories,\r\nDefendant has not demonstrated they were properly served. The hearing on the\r\nMotion as to the Form Interrogatories is CONTINUED so that Defendant may do so.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

B. Sanctions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a)\r\nprovides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a\r\nparty engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable\r\nexpenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that\r\nconduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or\r\nsubmit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010,\r\nsubd. (d).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds Plaintiff Wilson’s\r\nfailure to respond to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories and Demand for\r\nProduction of Documents a misuse of the discovery process.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant seeks sanctions of\r\n$1,520.00 based on 7 hours of attorney time billed at $200.00 per hour and two\r\nfiling fees of $60.00. (Special Interrogatories & Production Motions, Zaki\r\nDecls., ¶¶ 9.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of\r\nthese nearly identical motions and the limited opposition. The Court finds\r\n$720.00, based on 3 hours of attorney time and two filing fees to be\r\nreasonable.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs’ counsel Kenneth Yeager\r\nfiled a sworn declaration in opposition to these Motions explaining he did not\r\nprovide any responses because his office lost contact and cooperation with\r\nPlaintiff Wilson. (6/3/21 Yeager Decl., ¶ 2; 7/15/21 Yeager Decl., ¶ 2.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Sanctions are to be paid by\r\nPlaintiff Wilson only.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s\r\nMotions to compel Plaintiff Chandra Wilson to serve responses to Special\r\nInterrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, are\r\nGRANTED. Plaintiff Wilson is ordered to serve verified responses without\r\nobjections within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant’s\r\nrequests for sanctions are also granted in the amount of $720.00 to be paid by\r\nPlaintiff Wilson only. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within\r\nthirty (30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

However, Defendant’s Motion to compel\r\nPlaintiff Wilson to respond to Form Interrogatories and request for sanctions\r\nis CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 8, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING\r\nSTREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing,\r\nDefendant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the issues noted\r\nherein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or\r\ndenied.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

\r\n\r\n

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer YEAGER KENNETH