SADDLETREE RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSN VS FRANCISCO DORADO ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC696367    Hearing Date: March 11, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Saddletree Ranch Homeowners Association

OPPOSITION: None

Defendants/Cross-Complainants Francisco Dorado (“Dorado”) and Manuel del Villar (“Villar”) (collectively “Defendants”), leased a property in Sylmar, California, which was owned and managed by Plaintiff/Cross-Complainants Saddletree Ranch Homeowners Association (“Saddletree”), out of where they owned and managed a business renting horse stables and hosting equestrian shows.

Saddletree alleges that Defendants stopped paying their monthly rent in April 2016.

On November 7, 2018, Saddletree served a Demand for Production of Documents, Set No. 1, on Dorado and Villar. Saddletree has not received a response from either Dorado or Villar. No opposition has been filed. Saddletree requests that Dorado and Villar be ordered to respond to Saddletree’s Demand for Production, Set No. 1, without objections, within 15 days.

On November 7, 2018, Saddletree served Form Interrogatories, Set No. 1, on Dorado and Villar. Saddletree has not received a response from either Dorado or Villar. No opposition has been filed. Saddletree requests that Dorado and Villar be ordered to respond to Form Interrogatories, Set No. 1, without objections, within 15 days.

Saddletree also requests monetary sanctions in aggregate of $3,097.50 against Dorado and Villar and their counsel, Aldo Flores (“Flores”).

Standard: 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.

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), 2031. 300, 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.)

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 of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

On November 7, 2018, Saddletree served a Demand for Production of Documents, Set No. 1, on Dorado and Villar.

On November 7, 2018, Saddletree served Form Interrogatories, Set No. 1, on Dorado and Villar. Saddletree has not received a response from either Dorado or Villar.

The statutory deadlines for Dorado and Villar to respond have long since passed.

Accordingly, Saddletree’s motions are each GRANTED.

Sanctions: Saddletree requests $3,097.50 in sanctions from Dorado for both motions to compel production and response to the interrogatories. Counsel’s hourly rate is $395. Saddletree incurred a $60 filing fee for each motion. Counsel states that they spent 4 hours drafting the motions and that they will require 3 hours to attend the hearing. Saddletree also had another attorney review the motions for 0.5 hours at an hourly rate of $425.

Saddletree requests $3,097.50 in sanctions from Villar for both motions to compel production and response to the interrogatories. Counsel’s hourly rate is $395. Saddletree incurred a $60 filing fee for each motion. Saddletree states that they spent 4 hours drafting the motions and that they will require 3 hours to attend the hearing. Saddletree also had another attorney review the motions for 0.5 hours at an hourly rate of $425.

The Court will award Saddletree $3,097.50 in sanctions against Villar and his counsel and

$3,097.50 in sanctions against Dorado and his counsel.

Conclusion: The Court orders Dorado and Villar to respond, without objections, to Saddletree’s Demand for Production of Documents (Sets No. 1) within 15 days of this order.

The Court orders Dorado and Villar to respond, without objections, to Saddletree’s Form Interrogatories (Sets No. 1) within 15 days of this order

The Court also orders Dorado and Flores, jointly and severally, to pay Saddletree $3,097.50, within 30 days of this order.

The Court also orders Villar and Flores, jointly and severally, to pay Saddletree $3,097.50, within 30 days of this order.

Moving Party to provide notice.