MALIK TORIAN GAILES, ET AL. VS MARTHA GONZALEZ

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0240 Hearing Date: March 20, 2025 Dept: A

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Martha Gonzalez

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Malik Torian Gailes

1. Background

This is a motor vehicle collision action. Plaintiffs Malik Torian Gailes and Crystal Torriana Akuna (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege that defendant Martha Gonzales ("Defendant") negligently owned, operated, maintained, or entrusted her vehicle so as to collide with Plaintiffs' vehicle, causing Plaintiffs personal injury and property damage.

2. Discussion

a. Motions to Compel Initial Discovery

Defendant moves to compel initial responses to Defendant's Demand for Production, Set One; Form Interrogatories, Set One; and Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiffs do not oppose the instant motions.

A party must respond to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission within 30 days of service. (Code Civ. Proc. ; 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc. ; 2031.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc. ; 2033.250, subd. (a).) However, these time limits are extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, fax, or electronically. (See Code Civ. Proc., ;1010.6, subd. (a)(4); see also Code Civ. Proc., ;1013.) "If the last day for the performance of any act provided or required by law to be performed within a specified period of time is a holiday, then that period is hereby extended to and including the next day that is not a holiday." (Code Civ. Proc., ;12a, subd. (a).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections including privilege or on the protection of work product. (See Code Civ. Proc., ;2031.300, subd. (a); see also Code Civ. Proc., ;2030.290, subd. (a).) The party to whom the discovery requests are directed must sign the responses under oath, unless the responses consist of only objections. (Code Civ. Proc., ;2030.250, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., ;2031.250, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., ;2033.240, subd. (a).)

Defendant contends, and attorney Britton P. Galang, Esq. declares, that discovery was propounded to Plaintiff Akuna on October 14, 2024. (Galang Decl. ¶ 2.) After Plaintiff Gailes requested and Defendant granted several extensions, Plaintiff Akuna served only unverified discovery responses on December 30, 2024. (Galang Decl. ¶ ¶ 3-5.) Despite attempts to meet and confer and multiple extensions granted, verifications were not received by February 6, 2025, the date of preparation of the motions. (Galang Decl. ¶ ¶ 6-9.) There is no indication that verifications have been served as of March 18, 2025. The court will therefore grant Defendant's motions to compel initial discovery responses.

b. Sanctions

Defendant requests $760 in attorney's fees and costs for each motion against Plaintiff Akuna and her attorney of record, Arturo T. Salinas, Esq, based on attorney Galang's hourly rate of $175 across six hours preparing the motions, six hours for travel time and court appearance, and a $60 filing fee for each motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides that, "[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method . . . , the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose . . . [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process . . . ." Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides that misuse of the discovery process includes, but is not limited to, failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: "The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed." Monetary sanctions shall constitute reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees incurred as a result of the sanctionable conduct. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Monetary sanctions are authorized in connection with a motion to compel responses to interrogatories, and to compel responses to and compliance with inspection demands. (See, Code of Civ. Proc. ; ; 2031.060, 2030.290.)

As Plaintiff Akuna failed to respond to Movant's discovery requests, necessitating the filing of the instant motions, monetary sanctions are authorized against Plaintiff Akuna and her counsel. However, Plaintiff's counsel of record appears to be Gabriel K. Eissakharian, not Arturo T. Salinas. In light of that, and in light of attorney Eissakharian's declaration that he has been unable to obtain Plaintiff Akuna's cooperation in this matter, the court declines to award sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel.

The court finds $175 per hours reasonable under the circumstances. As the motions will be heard as part of a single hearing, the court will reduce the requested hours by 5. The court will order monetary sanctions imposed against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,405.

3. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff Crystal Torrianna Akuna's initial responses to Demand for Production, Set One. Plaintiff Gailes is ordered to provide discovery responses not later than April 18, 2025.

The court GRANTS Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff Crystal Torrianna Akuna's initial responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff Gailes is ordered to provide discovery responses not later than April 18, 2025.

The court GRANTS Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff Crystal Torrianna Akuna's initial responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff Gailes is ordered to provide discovery responses not later than April 18, 2025.

The court GRANTS Defendant's request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Crystal Torrianna Akuna in the amount of $1,405, to be paid not later than April 18, 2025.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

DATED: March 20, 2025

Hon. Elizabeth L. Bradley

Judge of the Superior Court