Case Number: 19STCV09428 Hearing Date: December 10, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

MICHAEL ROBERTS,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

MARIO SANCHEZ, JR., et al.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: 19STCV09428

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES; IMPOSING SANCTIONS

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

December 10, 2019

Plaintiff, Michael Roberts filed this action against Defendant, Mario Sanchez, Jr. for damages arising out of an automobile accident and subsequent assault. Plaintiff propounded RFAs and form interrogatories on Defendant on 7/26/19. Defendant initially served nothing but objections to the form interrogatories. Defendant ultimately agreed to serve supplemental responses on or before 10/11/19, which he did. Plaintiff continued to believe many of the responses were deficient, and Plaintiff wrote a meet and confer letter. Plaintiff scheduled an IDC for 10/28/19; Defendant failed to appear, and the Court took the IDC off calendar.

At this time, Plaintiff moves to compel supplemental responses to form interrogatories 4.1, 12-1-12.7, 13.1-13.2, 16.1, 16.2, 16.10, 20.2, and 20.4-20.11.

Defendant opposes the motion, arguing it is moot in light of the 10/11/19 supplemental responses. However, the motion is based on the deficiency of the 10/11/19 responses, expressly acknowledges receipt of those responses, and was filed on 10/31/19; thus, the motion is clearly not moot.

Defendant next argues the motion should be denied because Plaintiff did not make a serious effort to meet and confer prior to filing the motion. Plaintiff mailed a detailed meet and confer letter to Defendant on 10/14/19. Plaintiff’s attorney declares there was no response. Plaintiff also scheduled an IDC, which Defendant chose not to attend. Defendant does not mention or address the failure to attend the IDC in the opposition. Defendant failed to demonstrate any deficiency in the meet and confer efforts; on the contrary, it was Defendant who failed to engage in the necessary meet and confer.

The separate statement shows the form interrogatory responses remain deficient. Defendant is ordered to serve supplemental responses, without objections, addressing each defect set forth in the separate statement, within twenty days. The Court notes that Defendant failed to justify his objections, and the burden was on him, in opposition to the motion, to do so. Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.

Sanctions are appropriate. Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $700/hour. The Court reduces this to $200/hour, which is more in line with what attorneys typically charge in the personal injury courts. The Court awards two hours to meet and confer, 1.6 hours to attend the IDC, four hours to draft the moving papers, one hour to draft the reply, and two hours to appear at the hearing, for a total of 10.6 hours of attorney time at the rate of $200/hour, or $2120 in attorneys’ fees. The Court also awards the $60 filing fee.

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Defendant and his attorneys of record, jointly and severally. They are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through his attorney of record, in the total amount of $2180 within twenty days.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.