Case Number: BC676351 Hearing Date: April 09, 2018 Dept: 93

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/cross-complainant Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: None

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One

Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Statement of Damages

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

On September 20, 2017, plaintiff Deborah Dix filed a complaint against defendants Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. and Andrews International, Inc. for premises liability. She alleges that on November 18, 2016, while on defendant’s premises, defendants negligently caused conditions, which resulted in a security barrier striking plaintiff resulting in injuries and damages.

Trial is set for March 2, 2019.

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.

Statement of Damages

CCP § 425.11(b) states: “When a complaint is filed in an action to recover damages for personal injury or wrongful death, the defendant may at any time request a statement setting forth the nature and amount of damages being sought. The request shall be served upon the plaintiff; who shall serve a responsive statement as to the damages within 15 days. In the event that a response is not served, the defendant, on notice to the plaintiff, may petition the court in which the action is pending to order the plaintiff to serve a responsive statement.”

DISCUSSION

Defendant Hudson requests that the court compel plaintiff Deborah Dix to serve responses to defendant’s first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for production of documents. Defendant also requests an order compelling plaintiff to serve responses to defendant’s Request for Statement of Damages. Defendant served its discovery requests and the request for statement of damages on October 30, 2017. Responses were due by November 20, 2017 for the request for statement of damages and by December 4, 2017 for the discovery requests. After not receiving responses, defense counsel sent a letter to plaintiff’s counsel on December 8, 2017, requesting responses by December 15, 2017. To date, defense counsel has not received responses.

Because defendant properly served discovery requests and the request for statement of damages and plaintiff failed to respond, the motions are GRANTED.

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.”

Defendant Hudson requests sanctions against plaintiff and her counsel of record, Max Draitser, in the amount of $1,860 for each of the discovery motions and $1,500 for the motion to compel response to request for statement of damages. The court finds that $780 ($240/hr. x 2.5 hrs. plus $ 180 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded against plaintiff and her attorney of record for the three motions to compel discovery requests. The court declines to award sanctions with respect to the motion for response to request for statement of damages.

The court ORDERS:

Pursuant to CCP § 2030.290, plaintiff Deborah Dix is ordered to serve on defendant verified responses without objections to defendant Hudson’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, which comply with CCP §§ 2030.220 and 2030.250(a) and (b), within 20 days.

Pursuant to CCP § 2031.300, plaintiff Deborah Dix is ordered (1) to serve on defendant a verified response without objections to defendant Hudson’s Demand for Identification and Production of Documents, Set One, and (2) to produce all documents and things in plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to defendant’s demand, within 20 days.

Pursuant to CCP § 425.11(b), plaintiff is ordered to serve a responsive statement to defendant’s Request for Statement of Damages, within 20 days.

The court orders plaintiff Deborah Dix and her attorney of record, Max Draitser, to pay to defendant Hudson a monetary sanction in the amount of $780 within 30 days.

Moving defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 9, 2018

____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court