Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records defendant is represented by attorney Aldo Flores who is being sanctioned by the judge. Below is a republication of the court’s tentative ruling. From the Los Angeles case docket we believe no opposition was filed and this ruling probably became the court’s final order.

Case Number: BC656712 Hearing Date: May 07, 2018 Dept: J

Re: John SE Doe v. Claremont Unified School district, etc., et al. (BC656712)

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Moving Party: Plaintiff John SE Doe

Respondent: No timely opposition filed (due 4/24/18)

POS: Moving OK

This is an action involving alleged childhood sexual abuse. The complaint, filed 4/5/17, asserts causes of action against Defendants Claremont Unified School District, Vanessa Antonia Tinoco and Does 1-100 for:

1. Negligence

2. Negligent Supervision

3. Negligent Hiring/Retention

4. Negligent Failure to Warn, Train or Educate

5. Constructive Fraud

6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

7. Sexual Assault

8. Sexual Battery

9. Sexual Harassment

10. Gender Violence

On 2/21/18, this case was transferred from Department 97 (personal injury hub) to this department.

The Final Status Conference is set for 2/14/19. A jury trial is set for 2/26/19.

Plaintiff John SE Doe (“plaintiff”) moves the court for an order requiring Defendant Vanessa Antonia Tinoco (“Tinoco”) to provide responses to his Requests for Production, Set No. One. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions against Tinoco and her counsel, Aldo Flores, in the amount of $2,060.00.

“Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand…” CCP § 2031.260(a). “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply…(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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…” CCP § 2031.300.

On 2/7/18, plaintiff mail-served his Requests for Production, Set No. One on Tinoco. (Reilley Decl., ¶ 3, Exhibit “A”). On 3/22/18, plaintiff’s counsel sent Flores a meet and confer letter regarding Tinoco’s failure to provide any responses to the subject discovery, and requested that responses, without objections, be provided by 3/30/18. (Id., ¶ 6, Exhibits “B” & “C”). Tinoco has not served plaintiff with any responses to the subject discovery as of the date of the filing of the motion. (Id., ¶ 7).

This motion, then, is granted. Defendant Tinoco is ordered to serve a verified response to the Requests for Production, without objection, within 10 days Sanctions are awarded, but reduced to $435.00 (i.e., 0.5 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $250.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee), payable by Tinoco and her attorney of record within 10 days.