SIMEON THOMPSON VS FELTON BUCKHOLTZ, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC09608    Hearing Date: September 16, 2020    Dept: 26

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Simeon Thompson’s Motion For Order Compelling Defendants to Respond to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions is GRANTED. DEFENDANTS ARE TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE DEMANDS FOR INSPECTION AND FORM INTERROGATORIES WITHIN 20 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANTS ARE FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $400.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Simeon Thompson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Defendants Anthony Hames and Felton Buckholtz (“Defendants”) on October 16, 2019. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Inspection and Form Interrogatories on February 14, 2020. Defendants filed an opposition on March 6, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on March 12, 2020. On July 9, 2020, Plaintiff a supplemental declaration.

The Motion initially came for hearing on July 15, 2020, at which time the Court granted the Motion in part and continued the hearing with respect to the request to compel Defendant Anthony Hames’ responses to Form Interrogatories and Felton Buckholtz’s responses to Form Interrogatories and Demand for Inspection. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file three additional filing fees with respect to these requests. The filing fees were paid on July 15, 2020.

Due to Defendant Hames’ failure to respond to the Form Interrogatories and Defendant Buckholtz’s failure to respond to Form Interrogatories and Demand for Inspection, the remainder of the Motion is granted. DEFENDANTS ARE ORDERED TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, TO THE DEMANDS FOR INSPECTION AND FORM INTERROGATORIES WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. (CODE CIV. PROC., §§ 2030.300, 2031.300.) DEFENDANTS’ LATE SERVICE OF RESPONSES DOES NOT ABSOLVE THEM OF THIS ORDER BECAUSE PLAINTIFF CONTENDS THE RESPONSES DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.

MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE ALSO AWARDED UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIONS 2030.290, 2031.290 AND 2023.010. SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE IN THE AMOUNT OF $400.00 BASED ON A LODESTAR CALCULATION. (MOTION, TUEY DECL., ¶12.) DEFENDANTS ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY THE SANCTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC09608    Hearing Date: July 15, 2020    Dept: 26

Thompson v. Buckholtz, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Simeon Thompson’s Motion For Order Compelling Defendants to Respond to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions are GRANTED solely as to Defendant Anthony Hames’ response to Demands for Inspection. DEFENDANT HAMES IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE Demands for Inspection WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF HAMES IS FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $400.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Hearing on remainder of Plaintiff Simeon Thompson’s Motion is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 AT ___10__ AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Simeon Thompson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Defendants Anthony Hames and Felton Buckholtz (“Defendants”) on October 16, 2019. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Inspection and Form Interrogatories on February 14, 2020. Defendants filed an opposition on March 6, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on March 12, 2020. On July 9, 2020, Plaintiff a supplemental declaration.

The Court initially addresses the fact that Plaintiff filed a single motion seeking relief with respect to two Defendants. Specifically, the Motion seeks to compel responses and for an award of sanctions from both Plaintiffs, who were each separately served Form Interrogatories and Demands for Inspection. Yet for each of the four requests, which should have been filed as four separate motions, Plaintiff only paid a single filing fee. Until Plaintiff pays three additional filing fees, the Court can only rule on the Motion as to one Defendant and one type of discovery.

The Court, therefore, finds that due to Defendant Hames’ failure to respond, the Motion is granted solely as to him as to the Demands for Inspection. Defendant Hames is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to the Demands for Inspection within twenty (20) days from the date of Plaintiff serving a notice of this Order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) Defendant Hames’ late service of responses does not absolve him of this order as Plaintiff contends the responses do not comply with the statutory requirements.

Monetary sanctions are also awarded under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.290. Given the simplicity of the Motion, the Court finds that sanctions are appropriate in the amount of $400.00 based on a lodestar calculation. (Motion, Tuey Decl., ¶12.) Defendant Hames is ordered to pay the sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days’ notice of this Order.

With respect to the remainder of the discovery requests the hearing on the Motion is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 AT ___10_____ AM. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, PLAINTIFF IS TO PAY THREE (3) ADDITIONAL FILING FEES. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Moving party to give notice.