Case Number: BC654417 Hearing Date: December 26, 2017 Dept: 93

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Maridory Beltran

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Mariam and Armen Kukurchiyan

Motion to Compel Reponses to First Set of Form Interrogatories (as to Mariam)

Motion to Compel Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories (as to Mariam)

Motion to Compel Responses to Production of Documents (as to Mariam)

Motion to Compel Responses to First Set of Form Interrogatories (as to Armen)

Motion to Compel Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories (as to Armen)

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

On March 20, 2017, plaintiff Maridory Beltran filed a complaint against defendant Mariam Kukurchiyan for motor vehicle negligence.

On June 13, 2017, plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint, designating Armen Kukurchiyan as Doe 1.

LEGAL STANDARD

Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. CCP §2030.290(b). The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.

Request for Production of Documents

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP §2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. CCP §2031.300. Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 8:1487.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests that the court compel defendants to serve responses without objections to the first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for inspection and production of documents as to defendant Mariam Kukurchiyan and the first sets of form interrogatories and special interrogatories as to defendant Armen Kukurchiyan, served on August 9, 2017. Responses were due by September 13, 2017. On September 13, 2017, defendants requested an extension to September 27, 2017. On September 26, 2017, defendants requested an extension to October 4, 2017. On October 23, 2017, plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to defense counsel, requesting responses by October 31, 2017. On November 2, 2017, plaintiff’s counsel left a message for defense counsel. As of the filing of the motions on November 8, 2017, plaintiff’s counsel had not received responses.

In opposition, defendants contend that they served responses on November 13, 2017.

Because defendants have served responses, the motions are DENIED as moot.

Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Plaintiff requests sanctions against defendants and their attorney of record, Law Offices of Richard, Fair and Cohen. The court finds that $620 ($250/hr. x 2 hrs. plus $120 filing fee) is a reasonable amount to be awarded against each defendant and attorney of record. The court declines to award sanctions as to the motion to compel responses to demand for production of documents because the motion was improperly noticed and the memorandum of points and authorities attached was as to form interrogatories as to Armen.

The court ORDERS that defendant Mariam Kukurchiyan and attorney of record, Law Offices of Richard, Fair and Cohen, pay to plaintiff a monetary sanction in the amount of $620 to be paid within 30 day and that defendant Armen Kukurchiyan and attorney of record, Law Offices of Richard, Fair and Cohen, pay to plaintiff a monetary sanction in the amount of $620 to be paid within 30 days.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 26, 2017

____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court