FRANCISCO CAMCHO GONZALEZ VS XPO LOGISTICS PORT SERVICES, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******5013 Hearing Date: January 27, 2023 Dept: 28

Defendant XPO Logistics Port Services, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On December 9, 2021, Plaintiff Francisco Camcho Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants XPO Logistics Port Services, LLC (“XPO”), Guerrero Trucking (“Guerrero”), Braulio A. De Mora Villegas (“Villegas”) and Luis Guerrero Loor (“Loor”) for negligence.

On December 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a FAC.

On February 17, 2022, Defendants filed an answer.

On October 28, 2022, XPO filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories to be heard on January 27, 2023. On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On January 18, 2023, XPO filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for June 8, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

XPO requests the Court grant the motions to compel responses to form interrogatories and special interrogatories within 15 days of the hearing on the motion. XPO requests the Court impose sanctions of $1,240.00 on Plaintiff.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion and the request for sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California Code of Civil Procedure 2031.300, “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” According to CCP 2030.260, for a response to interrogatories to be timely, it must be served within 30 days of service. CCP 2031.260 provides the same 30-day deadline for request for production responses.

California Code of Civil Procedure 2023.030(a) provides that “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” According to CCP 2023.010(d), misuse of the discovery process includes “failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

California Code of Civil Procedure 2030.290(c) states that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

DISCUSSION

Discovery

On February 18, 2022, XPO served discovery on Plaintiff. Responses were due on March 22, 2022. XPO granted an extension, during which Villegas filed for bankruptcy, resulting in a stay on the case. The bankruptcy case was discharged on June 13, 2022; despite this, Plaintiff has yet to serve any responses.

Plaintiff argues that the lack of response was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Plaintiff specifically notes that XPO stopped including Plaintiff counsel’s staff on emails, and that at least one attorney was no longer with the firm. The Court finds this to be inexcusable neglect; a party is responsible for serving timely discovery responses, regardless of reminders by the serving party. Additionally, there is no indication that no attorney received emails from XPO. The bankruptcy issue has been resolved for approximately 7 months now, providing more than enough time for Plaintiff to have submitted responses. As Plaintiff has not, the Court grants the motion.

Sanctions

Sanctions are warranted, as Plaintiff failed to provide any responses prior to the hearing on the motion, constituting a misuse of the discovery process.

XPO requests sanctions of $1,240.00, based upon 4 hours of attorney’s work, at a rate of $195.00 per hour and 1 $60.00 filling fee. First, the Court notes that the total should only amount to $840.00. The Court also notes this should have been filed as two separate motions and will impose an additional $60.00 filling fee on XPO. Attorney’s work comprised of 1 hour to draft, 2 hours to reply, and 1 hour to appear at the hearing. The Court grants sanctions totaling $705.00.

CONCLUSION

Defendant XPO Logistics Port Services, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses, without objections, within 15 days of the hearing on the motion.

Defendant XPO Logistics Port Services, LLC’s is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay XPO $705.00 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

XPO is ordered to pay the Court one additional $60.00 filling fee.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Case Number: *******5013 Hearing Date: January 26, 2023 Dept: 28

Defendant XPO Logistics Port Services, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents.

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On December 9, 2021, Plaintiff Francisco Camcho Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants XPO Logistics Port Services, LLC (“XPO”), Guerrero Trucking (“Guerrero”), Braulio A. De Mora Villegas (“Villegas”) and Luis Guerrero Loor (“Loor”) for negligence.

On December 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a FAC.

On February 17, 2022, Defendants filed an answer.

On October 28, 2022, XPO filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents to be heard on January 26, 2023. On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On January 18, 2023, XPO filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for June 8, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

XPO requests the Court grant the motions to compel responses to request for discovery within 15 days of the hearing on the motion. XPO requests the Court impose sanctions of $1,240.00 on Plaintiff.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion and the request for sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California Code of Civil Procedure 2031.300, “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” According to CCP 2030.260, for a response to interrogatories to be timely, it must be served within 30 days of service. CCP 2031.260 provides the same 30-day deadline for request for production responses.

California Code of Civil Procedure 2023.030(a) provides that “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” According to CCP 2023.010(d), misuse of the discovery process includes “failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

California Code of Civil Procedure 2030.290(c) states that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

DISCUSSION

Discovery

On February 18, 2022, XPO served discovery on Plaintiff. Responses were due on March 22, 2022. XPO granted an extension, during which Villegas filed for bankruptcy, resulting in a stay on the case. The bankruptcy case was discharged on June 13, 2022; despite this, Plaintiff has yet to serve any responses.

Plaintiff argues that the lack of response was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Plaintiff specifically notes that XPO stopped including Plaintiff counsel’s staff on emails, and that at least one attorney was no longer with the firm. The Court finds this to be inexcusable neglect; a party is responsible for serving timely discovery responses, regardless of reminders by the serving party. Additionally, there is no indication that no attorney received emails from XPO. The bankruptcy issue has been resolved for approximately 7 months now, providing more than enough time for Plaintiff to have submitted responses. As Plaintiff has not, the Court grants the motion.

Sanctions

Sanctions are warranted, as Plaintiff failed to provide any responses prior to the hearing on the motion, constituting a misuse of the discovery process.

XPO requests sanctions of $1,240.00, based upon 4 hours of attorney’s work, at a rate of $195.00 per hour and 1 $60.00 filling fee. First, the Court notes that the total should only amount to $840.00. Attorney’s work comprised of 1 hour to draft, 2 hours to reply, and 1 hour to appear at the hearing. The Court grants sanctions totaling $645.00.

CONCLUSION

Defendant XPO Logistics Port Services, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses, without objections, within 15 days of the hearing on the motion.

Defendant XPO Logistics Port Services, LLC’s is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay XPO $645.00 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.