Case Number: BC699922 Hearing Date: November 18, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

GLORIA SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MATTHEW ALFONSO MATTERA, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO: BC699922

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DEEMING MOTION SUBSTANTIVELY MOOT; IMPOSING SANCTIONS

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

November 18, 2019

Plaintiff filed this motion to deem RFAs admitted, or to compel supplemental responses[1], on 10/18/19. The parties had been scheduled to have an IDC that same day, but Defendant failed to appear. On 10/24/19, the Court heard Defendant’s ex parte application to continue the IDC and continue the hearing on the MTCF. The Court treated the ex parte hearing as an IDC, and informed Defendant that objection-only responses were not code compliant and needed to be supplemented. The Court declined to continue the hearing on the MTCF.

On 11/04/19, Defendant filed opposition to the motion. Defendant’s opposition establishes that Defendant served supplemental responses to the RFAs at issue on 10/30/19, such that the motion is substantively moot.

The remaining issue is whether to impose sanctions. Defendant argues the Court should not impose sanctions, as Defendant acted reasonably in seeking to have an IDC held prior to determining whether or not further responses were necessary. Defendant points the Court to his ex parte application, which he attaches as Exhibit B to his opposition. Defendant’s ex parte application correctly notes that, while Plaintiff mentioned a 10/18/19 IDC in a meet and confer letter, Plaintiff did not actually file an IDC statement with the Court until the date of the IDC itself, 10/18/19. The parties, however, were engaged in ongoing meet and confer efforts at the time. Plaintiff, on 10/11/19, told Defendant the IDC would go forward because Plaintiff had not received code-compliant responses; Defendant indicated 10/18/19 was not an available date and Defendant would not appear.

The Court’s website does not reflect an IDC as “confirmed” unless and until the IDC statement is filed. In this case, Plaintiff did not file the IDC statement until the date of the hearing, and therefore Defendant would not have been able to confirm the IDC was going forward using the online reservation system.

Despite the foregoing, the Court is inclined to impose sanctions. Objections only responses are almost never served in good faith. Plaintiff made numerous attempts to obtain code-compliant responses without the need for an IDC or a motion. The RFAs were served on 7/23/19, and Defendant refused to provide code-compliant responses until 10/30/19, and even then only after the motion was filed and the Court expressly told Defendant he needed to do so.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1610. Plaintiff’s attorney bills at the reasonable rate of $250/hour. The Court finds the amount reasonable, and notes that it does not include time spend at the IDC and/or the hearing on the ex parte application, both of which were made necessary by Defendant’s failure to serve code-compliant responses to RFAs. The requested sanctions are therefore awarded in full. Sanctions are sought and imposed against Defendant and his attorney of record, jointly and severally; they are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through her attorney of record, in the amount of $1610, within twenty days.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.