Case Number: BC682495 Hearing Date: June 11, 2018 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

Shelsee Parada,

Plaintiff,

v.

Julian Pablo Valdez, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC682495

Hearing Date: June 11, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendant’S motions to compel discovery responses

Defendant Julian Pablo Valdez (“Defendant”) has filed two motions to compel responses from Plaintiff Shelsee Parada (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (“DIPD”), set one; and (2) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one.

On January 2, 2018, Defendant served the discovery requests on Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s discovery responses were due on February 6, 2018. Defense counsel granted several extensions to February 20, 2018, to March 6, 2018, to March 20, 2018, and then finally to March 27, 2018. No responses were received on March 27, 2018. Instead on March 27, 2018 at 5:54 pm, Plaintiff requested another extension to April 3, 3018. Defendant refused this last extension. Defendant states that as of the filing of this motion of May 8, 2018, Plaintiff has still not responded to discovery.

In opposition, Plaintiff states that the discovery responses were served on April 3, 2018 via mail.[1] Plaintiff attaches to the oppositions the responses that were served on April 3, 2018. Both responses include a proof of service declaration stating that the responses were served via mail on April 3, 2018. As such, Plaintiff requests that these motions be denied.

In reply, Defendant states that it did not receive any responses. In addition, Defendant points out that even if Plaintiff properly served the responses by mail on April 3, 3018, this was after the final extension.

The Court notes that Plaintiff did not address in the opposition the fact that the responses were sent after the last deadline. Nor has Plaintiff explained why there was such a delay in providing the responses. The Court further notes that Plaintiff’s responses included objections.

Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the DIPD, and FROG are granted pursuant to CCP §§2030.290 and 2031.300. Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses and has waived all objections. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories, and demand for inspection and production of documents, without objections, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff. The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond a misuse of the discovery process. Sanctions have been sufficiently noticed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, Alan F. Gindler and Muammar Reed. The Court grants Defendant’s request for sanctions for 2 hours to prepare the two motions and appear at the hearing, at $143.75 per hour, plus two $60 filing fees, and one $86 court call fee for a total of $493.50. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, Alan F. Gindler and Muammar Reed, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $493.50 to Defendant, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the DIPD and FROG are granted pursuant to CCP §§2030.290 and 2031.300. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories and demand for inspection and production of documents, without objections, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff Shelsee Parada and Plaintiff’s counsel, Alan F. Gindler and Muammar Reed, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $493.50 to Defendant, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

All parties should note that the hearing on this motion and all future hearings in this case will take place at the Court’s new location: Spring Street Courthouse, 312 N. Spring Street, Department 5, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order, including the Court’s new location and new department number, and file proof of service of such.

DATED: June 11, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Defendant objects to the declaration filed by Plaintiff’s counsel on grounds that counsel does not have personal knowledge of the facts within the declaration. However, the statements of counsel are irrelevant to the Court’s analysis as counsel attached copies of the responses which include a declaration of service. These declarations show that the responses were purportedly served on April 3, 2018. Thus, the Court will rely on the exhibits themselves rather than the statements of counsel in performing its analysis.