Case Number: BC667990 Hearing Date: April 12, 2018 Dept: 93

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Arsen Balyan

RESPONDING PARTY: None

Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and Requests for Sanctions

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

Background

Plaintiff Ekaterina Apekina (“Plaintiff”) has filed this action against Defendant Arsen Balyan (“Defendant”) for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (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 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. (Ibid.) 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. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. (Contra Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1) [good cause requirement for motion to compel further responses].)

Discussion

Defendant requests that the court compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery. Defendant served written discovery requests on August 18, 2017. (See Saldo Decl. ¶ 2.)

Because Defendant has properly served discovery requests and Plaintiff has failed to respond, the motions are GRANTED.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (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 Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process includes “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).) California 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 requests sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record in the amount of $433.50 for each motion. The Court finds $867.00 ($143.75/hr. x 4 hrs. = $575.00, plus filing fees of $120.00 and Courtcall expenses of $172.00) to be a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, Plaintiff is ordered to serve on Defendant verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories (Set No. One) which comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.220 and 2030.250(a) and (b), within twenty (20) days.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, Plaintiff is ordered (1) to serve on Defendant verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Demand for Inspection and Request for Production of Documents (Set No. One) which comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210 through 2031.250, and (2) to produce all documents and things in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control which are responsive to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents (Set Number One), within twenty (20) days.

The Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Max Draitser, Esq., to pay to Defendant a monetary sanction in the amount of $867.00 for the two motions within twenty (20) days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 12, 2018

____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court