This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/20/2019 at 01:53:57 (UTC).

LUIS SORRELL VS TAGE ERIKSEN

Case Summary

On 02/13/2018 LUIS SORRELL filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against TAGE ERIKSEN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4591

  • Filing Date:

    02/13/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SORRELL LUIS

Defendants and Respondents

ERIKSEN TAGE

DOES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SAADIAN BOBBY ESQ.

SAADIAN BABAK B. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

DOHERTY & CATLOW LAW OFFICES OF

DOHERTY JOHN

RAFFALOW RICHARD E.

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANT, TAGE ERIKSEN'S FIRST-AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

5/8/2018: DEFENDANT, TAGE ERIKSEN'S FIRST-AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Association of Attorney

5/17/2019: Association of Attorney

DEFENDANT, PAIGE ERIKSEN (ERRONEOUSLY SERVED AND SUED AS TAGE ERIKSEN) ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT

3/5/2018: DEFENDANT, PAIGE ERIKSEN (ERRONEOUSLY SERVED AND SUED AS TAGE ERIKSEN) ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT

DFFENDANT S DEMAND FOR A TRIAL BY JURY

4/5/2018: DFFENDANT S DEMAND FOR A TRIAL BY JURY

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

3/16/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

SUMMONS

2/13/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENCE PERSE

2/13/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENCE PERSE

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/17/2019
  • Association of Attorney; Filed by Tage Eriksen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DEFENDANT, TAGE ERIKSEN'S FIRST-AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Tage Eriksen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Tage Eriksen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Tage Eriksen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • DFFENDANT S DEMAND FOR A TRIAL BY JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Luis Sorrell (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DEFENDANT, PAIGE ERIKSEN (ERRONEOUSLY SERVED AND SUED AS TAGE ERIKSEN) ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Luis Sorrell (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Luis Sorrell (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENCE PERSE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC694591    Hearing Date: March 11, 2021    Dept: 28

Motions to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND

On February 13, 2018, Plaintiff Luis Sorrell (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Tage Eriksen (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff alleges negligence and negligence per se in the complaint arising from an automobile-bicycle collision that occurred on September 20, 2017.

On February 5, 2021, Defendant filed motions to compel responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.

Trial is set for April 30, 2021.

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiff’s verified responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production without objections due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve timely responses.

Defendant also asks the Court to impose $850.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for his abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.  There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[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. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he 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.”

DISCUSSION

The Court notes that Defendant filed two motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production within one pleadingTwo separate reservations should have been made for these motions.  In the future, Defendant is ordered to obtain separate hearing reservations and pay separate filing fees.  Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and violates Government Code section 70617, subdivision (f).  In the interest of justice, the Court will proceed to consider both of these motions.  However, the Courts ruling shall be contingent upon Defendant’s filing of a proof of payment of $60.00 to the Court.

On September 9, 2020, Defendant served Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production on Plaintiff by U.S. mail.  (Tabrisky Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A-B.)  Plaintiff has not served verified responses as of the time Joseph P. Tabrisky signed his declaration on February 5, 2020.  (Ibid.)

The Court finds the motions are properly granted.  Defendant served written discovery requests on Plaintiff and Plaintiff failed to serve timely verified responses.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s responses are properly compelled.

Defendant’s request for $850.00 in sanctions for these straight-forward and nearly duplicative motions is unreasonable.  Rather, the Court finds $800.00 is a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiff for his abuse of the discovery process.

CONCLUSION

The motions are CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production without objections.  These responses are due within twenty days of Defendant’s filing and service of a proof of service of a $60.00 payment to the Court.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay $800.00 to Defendant within thirty days of Defendant’s filing and service of a proof of service of a $60.00 payment to the Court.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Defendant 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.