Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiffs are represented by attorney Shaun Bauman who is being sanctioned by the judge.

Case Number: BC662952 Hearing Date: May 04, 2018 Dept: 7

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLIANTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS; MOTION GRANTED

On June 8, 2017, Plaintiffs Stefhany Sanchez and Monica Fuentes (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant James Pilkington (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle and general negligence relating to a June 12, 2015 automobile accident.

On December 7, 2017, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiffs. (Declaration of Matthew J. Deenihan, ¶ 3.) On January 11, 2018, at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request, Defendant granted a two-week extension on responses. (Deenihan Decl., ¶ 4.) On February 28, 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel advised that they had lost contact with Plaintiffs. (Deenihan Decl., ¶ 8.) To date, Plaintiffs have not served responses to discovery. Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiffs’ responses 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.)

Plaintiffs filed no opposition to these Motions and it is undisputed Plaintiffs failed to serve timely responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. Accordingly, the Motions to compel are GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve responses to Defendant’s 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 each Plaintiff and their counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $757.50 for three hours preparing these unopposed Motions and one hour attending the hearing, at counsel’s rate of $165.00 per hour, plus $180.00 filing fees. Plaintiffs and counsel are ordered to pay their $757.50 monetary sanction within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.