Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records respondent is represented by attorney Robert Weinstein who is being sanctioned by the court.

Case Number: BS172632 Hearing Date: April 23, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Progressive Select Insurance Co.

RESPONDING PARTY: Respondent Amie Blackman

(1) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories

(2) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Special Interrogatories

(3) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Request for Production and Inspection of Documents and Other Tangible Things

The court considered the moving and opposition papers.

BACKGROUND

On February 22, 2018, petitioner Progressive Select Insurance Company filed a petition against respondent Amie Blackman for assignment of case number for an uninsured motorist claim.

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

Petitioner Progressive requests that the court compel respondent Amie Blackman to serve verified responses without objections to petitioner’s first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for production and inspection of documents, served on July 3, 2017. Responses were due by August 7, 2017. Petitioner contends that multiple extensions had been granted but that no responses had been received by the filing date of the motions.

In opposition, respondent argues that the motions are moot because she timely served verified responses. She contends that on January 24, 2018, petitioner’s counsel sent correspondence demanding discovery responses prior to February 1, 2018. Respondent contends that she served responses without objection on January 26, 2018. When respondent’s counsel received the motions, respondent sent copies of her discovery responses a second time.

Based on respondent’s counsel’s representation in his declaration that responses have been served, the motions are 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.”

Petitioner requests sanctions against respondent and her attorney of record, Robert Weinstein, Esq., in the amount of $860 for each motion. Despite respondent’s counsel’s representation that the responses were served on January 26, 2018, the proofs of service of the responses does not contain a name of who served the responses. The signature is a scribble. Sanctions are warranted. The court finds that $580 ($200/hr. x 2 hrs. plus $180 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded against respondent and her attorney of record in total for all three motions.

The court ORDERS:

The court orders respondent Amie Blackman and her attorney of record, Robert Weinstein, Esq., to pay to petitioner Progressive a monetary sanction in the amount of $580 within 30 days in total for all three motions.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 23, 2018

____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court