Case Number: BC694202 Hearing Date: October 30, 2018 Dept: 4

(1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

(2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

(3) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

(4) Motion to Have Admissions Deemed Admitted

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

On February 13, 2018, plaintiffs Erendira Ramos, Eduardo Avila, and Diamaya Avila, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Erendira Ramos, filed a complaint against defendants Universal City Studios, LLC, Randy Houston, and Darlene Renee Ross for premises liability, gross negligence, negligent hiring, training, and supervision, assault and battery, and NIED based on an incident that occurred on November 4, 2016 at Halloween Horror Nights.

DISCUSSION

Defendant requests that the court compel plaintiffs to serve verified responses without objections to defendant’s first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents and to deem the truth of the matters admitted in the Requests for Admissions. Defendant served its discovery requests on May 17, 2018. Responses were due by June 18, 2018. Plaintiffs were given extensions to respond to July 22, July 27, August 3, August 17, and finally to August 20, 2018. On August 20, 2018, plaintiffs’ counsel requested another extension, which defense counsel denied. As of the filing date (August 22) of the motions, defense counsel had not received responses.

In opposition, plaintiffs contend that they served responses on August 21, 2018.

Because plaintiffs served responses the motions are MOOT.

Under CCP § 2023.030(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.” Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

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.” CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).

Under CCP § 2033.280(b), a monetary sanction shall be ordered in favor of the moving party and against the non-responding party, unless it finds that the non-responding party acted with substantial justification.

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states: “The 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.”

Defendant requests sanctions against plaintiffs in the amount of $2,800 for all four motions. The court finds that $765 ($175/hr. x 3 hrs. plus $240 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded against plaintiffs in total for all four motions.

The court ORDERS:

The court orders plaintiffs to pay to defendant a monetary sanction in the amount of $765 within 30 days in total for all four motions.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 30, 2018

____________________________

Christopher K. Lui

Judge of the Superior Court