Case Number: BC655928 Hearing Date: May 17, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Eric Robinson

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Loews Santa Monica Hotel

Motion to Compel Defendant’s Response to Set One of Form Interrogatories

Motion to Compel Defendant’s Response to Set One of Request for Production of Documents

The court considered the moving papers and opposition.

BACKGROUND

On April 7, 2017, plaintiff Eric Robinson filed a complaint against defendants Loews Santa Monica Hotel, Inc., Loews Santa Monica Beach Hotel, Inc., Loews Corporation, Strategic Hotels and Resorts, Inc., and Melissa Eppling for premises liability. Plaintiff alleges that on April 18, 2015, she was lawfully on the premises when suddenly and without notice, she was struck by a large outdoor patio umbrella that was not properly secured and presented a dangerous condition.

On January 31, 2018, defendant Loews Santa Monica Hotel, Inc. filed an answer.

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

Plaintiff requests that the court compel defendant Loews Santa Monica Hotel, Inc. to serve verified responses without objections to plaintiff’s first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for production of documents, served on December 15, 2017. Responses were due by January 20, 2018. As of the filing date of the motions, plaintiff’s counsel had not received responses.

In opposition, defendant contends that it has served responses.

Because defendant has served responses, the motion is 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.”

Plaintiff requests sanctions against defendant and its attorneys of record, Joshua Bordin-Wosk and Bordin Semmer LLP, in the amount of $1,090 for each motion. The court finds that $620 ($250/hr. x 2 hrs. hrs. plus $120 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded against defendant and its attorneys of record in total for both motions.

The court ORDERS:

The court orders defendant Loews Santa Monica Hotel, Inc. and its attorneys of record, Joshua Bordin-Wosk and Bordin Semmer LLP, to pay to plaintiff a monetary sanction in the amount of $620 within 30 days in total for both motions.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 17, 2018

____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court

Lawzilla Additional Information:
Court records indicate the hearing was continued to June 7th.