Case Number: BC644637 Hearing Date: March 09, 2018 Dept: 92

ANITA SABINE,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

AARON BROTHERS, INC., et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC644637

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Dept. 92

1:30 p.m.

March 9, 2018

Plaintiff propounded form interrogatories and RPDs on Defendant Aaron Brothers, Inc., on April 03, 2017. (Nazif Decl. ¶ 2.) Shortly thereafter (on April 27, 2017, per the opposition), the case was removed to federal court. On July 17, 2017, the case was remanded to this Court. On October 30, 2017, Plaintiff served a meet and confer letter regarding the instant motion to compel responses. (Nazif Decl. ¶ 4.) On November 1, 2017, Defendant responded that there was no outstanding discovery, because the parties had agreed to re-serve all discovery from before the removal/remand, and Plaintiff had not done so. (Nazif Decl. ¶ 5.) Although Plaintiff disagreed with the assertion that discovery had to be re-served, Plaintiff re-served the discovery by mail and fax on November 3, 2017. (Nazif Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. D.) Plaintiff also re-served the discovery via email. (Id.)

Having not received responses as of January 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel discovery.

An opposition was filed on February 07, 2018, and a reply was filed on February 14, 2018. The matter came on for hearing on February 22, 2018, but the Court was not in possession of the opposition or reply. The Court therefore continued the matter to March 9, 2018.

In opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiff stipulated to re-serve all discovery, and has still not done so, as their attempt to re-serve the discovery by email does not constitute permissible service.

In support of its motion, Plaintiff provided a proof of service, showing that all discovery was re-served on November 3, by both mail and fax. (Nazif Decl., Exh. D.) Defendant simply ignores this proof of service in the opposition, making no reference to Plaintiff’s claim to have re-served discovery on November 3, and focusing exclusively on the fact that Plaintiff also emailed Defendant the discovery on November 9. In support of its reply, Plaintiff has additionally provided copies of the fax transmission confirmations from November 3, to further support its claim that the documents were re-served on November 3. (Nazif Decl. ISO Reply, Exh. H.)

Accordingly, the Court concludes Plaintiff has properly served and re-served the motions, and that Defendant is therefore obligated to respond. Plaintiff’s motions are therefore granted. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories and RPDs, without objections, within ten days. CCP §§2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).

Sanctions are mandatory. §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c). Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,500/motion – two hours to prepare each motion and one hour to prepare a reply, at $500/hour. The Court awards one hour per motion for preparation of the motions because these are form motions to compel. The Court finds reasonable and awards one hour for each reply.

The Court therefore awards a total of four hours of attorney time at the rate of $300/hour, or $1200 in attorneys’ fees. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through its attorney of record, in the total amount of $1200, within twenty days.

Moving party to provide notice.

Dated this 9th day of March, 2018

Hon. Marc Gross

Judge of the Superior Court