VERNON ALEXANDER ROSADO, ET AL. VS LQK CORPORATION

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******4460    Hearing Date: February 19, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

(CCP ;; 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant LQK Corporation’s nine Motions to Compel Discovery are GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant’s discovery requests within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $900.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order. Defendant’s requests for evidentiary sanctions are DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On November 30, 2018, Plaintiffs Vernon Alexander Rosado (“Rosado”), Alexander Protective Services aka Alexander Protective SVC (“Protective Services”), and APS Security Patrol Systems Corporation (“APS”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an action against LQK Corporation (“Defendant”) for property damage. On June 30, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On January 24, 2020, Defendant filed the following nine motions: (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Alexander Protective Services’ Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary and Evidentiary Sanctions; (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Alexander Protective Services’ Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary and Evidentiary Sanctions; (3) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Alexander Protective Services’ Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Monetary and Evidentiary Sanctions; (4) Motion to Compel Plaintiff APS Security Patrol Systems Corporation’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary and Evidentiary Sanctions; (5) Motion to Compel Plaintiff APS Security Patrol Systems Corporation’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary and Evidentiary Sanctions; (6) Motion to Compel Plaintiff APS Security Patrol Systems Corporation’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Monetary and Evidentiary Sanctions; (7) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Vernon Alexander Rosado’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary and Evidentiary Sanctions; (8) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Vernon Alexander Rosado’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary and Evidentiary Sanctions; and (9) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Vernon Alexander Rosado’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Monetary and Evidentiary Sanctions (collectively, “the Motions”).

To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

1. Interrogatories and 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 each of the three Plaintiffs with Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on June 3, 2019. (Motions, Latif Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Although not required, Defendant attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiffs on various occasions regarding the lack of discovery responses prior to seeking judicial intervention. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-13.) To date, Defendant has not received responses to any of the nine sets of discovery sent to Plaintiffs. (Id. at ¶ 15.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiffs to serve responses to the discovery without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., ;; 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., ; 2031.300.)

1. 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 to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2023.010, subd. (d).)

The Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to serve timely responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant’s counsel apparently requests sanctions of $3,150.00 for each of the nine motions based on 10.5 hours of attorney time billed at $300.00 per hour, totaling $28,350.00. (Motions, Latif Decl., ¶ 16.) Defendant’s counsel does not seek to recover costs. However, the amount sought is extremely excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical Motions and the lack of opposition and reply. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $900.00 based on three hours of attorney time. Plaintiffs are ordered to pay sanctions within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

Defense counsel also requests that Plaintiffs be precluded from brining any further evidence forward. (Motions, p. 7-8.) Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence, or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., ;; 2023.010, subd. (g), 2030.290, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., ; 2031.300, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) An evidence sanction prohibits a party that misused the discovery process from introducing evidence on certain designated matters into evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2023.030, subd. (c).) A violation of a prior discovery order is not a pre-requisite to evidentiary sanctions when the responding has engaged in a pattern of willful discovery that has caused the unavailability of evidence. (Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1214-15.)

Here, Plaintiffs have not violated a prior order nor has Defendant demonstrated that Plaintiffs’ willful discovery abuse has resulted in the unavailability of evidence. Thus, Defendant’s request for evidentiary sanctions is DENIED.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s nine Motions to Compel Discovery are GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant’s discovery requests within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $900.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order. Defendant’s requests for evidentiary sanctions are DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.