Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****2938 Hearing Date: October 20, 2021 Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

Defendants Victor Fragoza and California Intermodal Associates (collectively, “Defendants”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Joey Villareal (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, set one (“SRPD”) and Supplemental Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”). Defendants request monetary sanctions. Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the motions.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Similarly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it . . . [t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2031.300, subd. (a).) And the party propounding the discovery request may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., ;; 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).)

Here, Defendants served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff on December 7, 2020, electronically. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by January 11, 2021. As of the filing date of the motions, Defendants have not received responses from Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the SRPD and SROG.

Defendants request monetary sanctions in connection with the motions. The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the subject discovery requests to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., ;; 2023.010, subd. (d); 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).) Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, D’Attaray Terrell Injury Lawyers, in the amount of $720, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $200 per hour, plus the filing fees at $60 per motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the SRPD and SROG per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, and orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the SRPD and SROG without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, D’Attaray Terrell Injury Lawyers, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $720 to Defendants by and through counsel for Defendants, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.

Case Number: ****2938    Hearing Date: November 20, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Joey Villareal (“Plaintiff”) filed this action following a motor vehicle collision with Defendant Victor Fragoza (“Fragoza”), who was driving a vehicle for Defendant California Intermodal Associates (“California Intermodal Associates”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff moves to compel the depositions of Fragoza and the person most qualified to testify on behalf of California Intermodal Associates. Defendants oppose the motions. The motions are denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent to attend and testify at deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., ;2025.450, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s counsel served deposition notices, and Defendants’ counsel served timely objections. (Declaration of Lauren S. Gafa, Exhs. A-D.) Then, the parties agreed to conduct the depositions on November 14, 2019. (Id., ¶ 10.) On November 7, 2019, Defendants’ counsel asked whether Plaintiff’s counsel intended to move forward with the depositions, and he did not respond. (Id., ¶ 12.) Plaintiff’s counsel also never confirmed a location. (Id., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff’s counsel never confirmed the depositions for November 14, 2019, and never sent out deposition notices. (Id., ¶ 13.) When Defendants’ counsel offered additional dates, Plaintiff’s counsel advised that new counsel would be substituting into the case, so he was unable to schedule anything. (Id., ¶¶ 14-15.) Based upon this record, it is clear there is no basis to grant the motion.

Both sides request sanctions. The Court awards sanctions to neither, as both parties bear responsibility for this dispute. Defendants’ counsel failed to cooperate sufficiently before the motion was filed, and Plaintiff’s counsel failed to cooperate sufficiently after the motion was filed. Therefore, an award of sanctions to either party would be unjust.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motions to compel depositions are denied. The Court denies both parties’ requests for sanctions. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: November 20, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court