Case Number: BC710457 Hearing Date: March 19, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

STEVEN FLORIAN,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

MARTIN QUAHUA, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC710457

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO COMPEL

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

March 19, 2019

Plaintiff propounded form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs on each of the two defendants on 9/28/18. The parties agreed to two extensions of time to respond, and responses were due on 11/30/18. Defendants asked for an additional extension of time to respond, and Plaintiff refused. Plaintiff filed these motions to compel on 2/15/19, contending Defendants had still not responded to the discovery. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to respond, without objections, and to pay sanctions.

On 3/06/19, Defendants filed timely opposition to the motion to compel. Defendants’ attorney explains that Defendants are Spanish speaking and often difficult to contact. Counsel declares an investigator was hired to locate and contact Defendants, who have now served verified responses. Defendants argue the motions are moot, and no sanctions should be imposed.

It is not clear whether Defendants’ responses included objections or not. Defendants did not include copies of their responses with their opposition papers. Plaintiff, in reply, briefly makes reference to objections, but does not make clear whether the responses included objections. Pursuant to Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404-06, untimely responses served prior to the hearing do not render motions to compel moot. To the extent Defendants have not already done so, they are ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to the outstanding discovery within ten days.

The remaining issue is whether sanctions should be imposed. Defendants argue sanctions should not be imposed because Counsel lost contact with Defendants, and because Counsel asked for an additional extension of time to respond. Plaintiff correctly notes, in reply, that the declaration in support of the opposition lacks specificity. More importantly, the declaration fails to show that the delay from 11/30/18 (when responses were due) to 2/15/19 (when motions were filed) was justified. Sanctions are therefore appropriate.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $4434.95/motion (for six motions). The Court finds both the claimed billing rate ($425/hour) and the number of hours billed (five per motion, plus five to prepare reply and attend hearing) grossly excessive. The Court reduces the billing rate to $200/hour. The Court awards one hour to prepare each form motion to compel. The Court awards one hour to file a reply, which could and should have been filed as a single omnibus document, rather than six duplicative documents. The Court awards three hours to travel from Long Beach to the courthouse and appear at the hearing. Thus, the Court awards a total of ten hours of attorney time at the rate of $200/hour, or $2000 in attorneys’ fees.

The Court awards six filing fees of $60 each, plus two processing fees of $4.95 each. The Court awards one service fee of $6.70. Thus, the Court awards $376.60 in costs.

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Defendants and their attorney of record, jointly and severally. They are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $2376.60 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, within twenty days.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.