Case Number: 17K07168 Hearing Date: May 15, 2018 Dept: 77

Defendant Pacific Reach Properties’ motions to compel Plaintiff Adolfo’s Contractor Corp. to respond to discovery are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide full responses, without objections, within twenty days. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $885.

Legal Standard

Interrogatories

Where there has been no timely response to interrogatories served under CCP § 2030.010, 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.)

The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the interrogatories, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (CCP § 2030.290(a)(1)-(2).)

Unlike a motion to compel “further” responses, a motion to compel responses contains no meet and confer requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 765-66.)

Request for Production of Things

Where there has been no timely response to a demand made under CCP § 2031.010, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. CCP § 2031.300. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses, nor is there any requirement that the moving party meet and confer before filing the motion. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 765-66.)

The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (CCP § 2031.300(a)(1)-(2).)

Discussion

Defendant propounded discovery on Plaintiff on December 27, 2017. (Brisco Decl. ¶ 2.) When no responses were received, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter. (Brisco Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 3.)

On March 20, 2018, having still not received responses, Defendant filed the instant motion.

The Court agrees Plaintiff has disobeyed the discovery statutes by failing to respond, and that Defendant’s motions are proper. Defendant’s motions are therefore GRANTED.

Sanctions

Defendant requests $2,797.50 in sanctions, representing 6 hours of work on the motions, 1 hour of expected work for a reply, and 3.5 hours of expected work for the hearing, all at a rate of $255.00 per hour, plus two $60 filing fees.

Pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(c), “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.”

Lacking any showing from Plaintiff as to whether it had substantial justification to not provide responses, the Court concludes sanctions are mandatory. However, Defendant’s requested sanctions are excessive. Accordingly, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $885, representing three hours of work total (two for the motions, and one for appearing at the hearing) and two $60 filing fees.