Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Andrew Chin who is being sanctioned by the court.

Case Number: BC640550 Hearing Date: April 30, 2018 Dept: 7

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; MOTION GRANTED

On November 10, 2016, Plaintiff Seung Chul Hu (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Sangmoo Lee, D.D.S. and Sangmoo Lee, D.D.S., Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for negligence relating to a November 10, 2015 dental procedure performed by Defendants on Plaintiff.

On July 18, 2016, Defendants served Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Sets One and Two, and Special Interrogatories, Sets One and Two, on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Ellen Kamon, ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Defense counsel granted an extension serve responses. (Kamon Decl., ¶ 3.) Defense counsel sent meet and confer and reminder letters regarding the overdue responses in September 2017 and February 2018. (Kamon Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5.) In February, Plaintiff’s counsel informed defense counsel that Plaintiff planned to file a dismissal (Kamon Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7), but in March 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel stated Plaintiff was avoiding him and being uncooperative, preventing Plaintiff’s counsel from filing a request for dismissal (Kamon Decl., ¶ 9.)

Since it is unclear whether this case will be dismissed, Defendants intend to proceed with discovery. Defendants move to compel Plaintiff’s responses to written discovery requests and monetary sanctions.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to these Motions and it is undisputed Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses to Defendants’ discovery requests. Accordingly, the Motions to compel are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses without objections to Defendants’ outstanding discovery requests within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and his counsel of record in the sum of $1,225.00 for five hours preparing these unopposed Motions and appearing at the hearing at counsel’s rate of $185.00 per hour and $300.00 filing fees. Plaintiff and counsel are ordered to pay this monetary sanction to Defendants’ counsel within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.