Case Number: EC067596 Hearing Date: May 11, 2018 Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 16

Date: 5/11/18

Case No: EC 067596 Trial Date: None Set

Case Name: Thai, et al. v. Quality Loan Service Corporation, et al.

DISCOVERY MOTIONS (4 Motions)

(CCP § 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280(b), 2023.010 et seq)

Moving Party: Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Defendant U.S. Bank

Responding Party: Plaintiff Quang Thai

Plaintiff Vince Chai (No Opposition)

RULING:

[No opposition]

UNOPPOSED Motions are GRANTED.

Motion of Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC to Compel Plaintiff Vince Chai to Answer, Without Objections, Form Interrogtories—General, Set No. One is GRANTED. Plaintiff Vince Chai is ordered to serve responses, without objection, within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $ 562.50 [$562.50 requested] are awarded against defendant Vince Chai, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Motion of Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC to Compel Plaintiff Quang Thai to Answer, Without Objections, Form Interrogtories—General, Set No. One is GRANTED. Plaintiff Quang Thai is ordered to serve responses, without objection, within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $562.50 [$562.50 requested] are awarded against defendant Quang Thai, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Motion of Defendant U.S. Bank to Compel Plaintiff Vince Chai to Answer, Without Objections, Form Interrogtories—General, Set No. One is GRANTED. Plaintiff Vince Chai is ordered to serve responses, without objection, within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $562.50 [$562.50 requested] are awarded against defendant Vince Chai, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Motion of Defendant U.S. Bank to Compel Plaintiff Quang Thai to Answer, Without Objections, Form Interrogtories—General, Set No. One is GRANTED. Plaintiff Quang Thai is ordered to serve responses, without objection, within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $562.50 [$562.50 requested] are awarded against defendant Quang Thai, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Responses to Form Interrogatories—General, Set No. One from each plaintiff as to each moving defendant

CHRONOLOGY

Date Discovery served : December 19, 2018

Date Responses served: NO RESPONSES SERVED

Date Motion served: February 6, 2018 Timely

OPPOSITION:

No opposition.

ANALYSIS:

Under CCP § 2030.290, “if a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,” that party “waives any legal right to exercise the option to produce…as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” Under subdivision (b), “the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”

In this case, interrogatories have been directed to plaintiffs and plaintiffs have failed to provide timely responses. Defendants have appropriately moved for orders to compel. Accordingly, plaintiffs have waived the option to produce, as well as all objections, and are ordered to respond.

Sanctions

With respect to interrogatories, under CCP section 2030.290(c), “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories…”

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuse of the discovery process includes “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP section 2023.030(a), “the 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 the statute, “ the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP §2023.030(a).

Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel, 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.”

In this case, plaintiffs have failed to respond to authorized methods of discovery and defendants have provided evidence that defendants have incurred expenses as a result of the conduct. Since the motions are unopposed, there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Defendants requests $562.50 for each of six motions, with the time to attend the hearing allocated among the motions. The sanctions appear reasonable.