Case Number: BC666605 Hearing Date: May 23, 2018 Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Sherman Oaks Fashion Associates, L.P.

OPPOSITION: None Submitted

Plaintiff Sherman Oaks Fashion Associates, L.P. sues Spoiled Rich, d/b/a Sheen, and Entertainment1 Productions, Inc. for damages arising from allegations that defendants failed to pay rent under a commercial lease agreement.

On June 27, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) breach of contract, (2) damages for breach of contract, and (3) breach of guaranty.

On April 30, 2018, plaintiff filed this unopposed motion to compel initial responses from Sheen (hereinafter defendant) to form interrogatories and inspection demands and to deem requests for admission admitted. Plaintiff seeks sanctions.

Standard: “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: [¶] (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). . . . [¶] (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” CCP § 2031.300(a), (b).

Except in circumstances not applicable here, “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(c).

Code of Civil Procedure sections 2033.080 and 2030.090 for requests for admission and interrogatories, respectively.

Analysis: Here, plaintiff propounded the form interrogatories, inspection demands, and requests for admission on defendant on December 22, 2017.

As of April 27, 2018, defendant has not responded, and as of the date of this ruling no response appears in the record. Gross Decl. ¶ 4. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling defendant to respond, and defendant fails to show that it acted with substantial justification.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $4,650.00, or 10 hours of work at $465 per hour. Gross Decl. ¶ 5. The estimate includes 4 hours of drafting the motion and 6 anticipated hours of reviewing and responding to the opposition (that was never filed) and for appearing at the hearing. The amount of time is excessive. The amount will be reduced to 3 hours for drafting the motion and 1.5 hours for appearing at the hearing.

Accordingly, the Court intends to award sanctions of $2,092.50.

Conclusion: The motion is GRANTED.

Defendant is ORDERED to respond WITHIN 10 DAYS to plaintiff’s interrogatories and inspection demands.

The requests for admission are deemed ADMITTED.

Defendant and its counsel of record Law Office of Winston K. McKesson, jointly and severally, are ORDERED to pay a monetary sanction of $2,092.50 to plaintiff via its counsel by check transmitted in a manner to ensure receipt within 20 days.

Plaintiff to give notice.