Case Number: BC669918 Hearing Date: May 23, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendant DTG Operations, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Gerardo Rosas Martinez

Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories

Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories

Motion to Compel Production of Documents

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

On August 1, 2017, plaintiff Gerardo Rosas Martinez filed a complaint against defendants Dollar Thrifty Group, Elsa Geinoz, and James Alan Steller for motor vehicle negligence.

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

Defendant DTG Operations, Inc. (erroneously sued as Dollar Thrifty Group) requests that the court compel plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to defendant’s first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents, served on January 26, 2018. Responses were due by March 2, 2018. As of the filing date of the motions, defense counsel had not received responses.

In opposition, plaintiff contends that he served responses on April 27, 2018. He explains that plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly informed defense counsel that plaintiff’s counsel was having difficulty communicating with plaintiff, who was unresponsive. Further, plaintiff argues, the sanctions requested is unreasonable.

Because plaintiff 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.”

Defendant requests sanctions against plaintiff and his attorney of record in the amount of $2,262.50 for all three motions. The court finds that $530 ($175/hr. x 2 hrs. plus $180 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded against plaintiff only for all three motions.

The court ORDERS:

The court orders plaintiff Gerardo Rosas Martinez to pay to defendant a monetary sanction in the amount of $530 within 30 days in total for all three motions.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 23, 2018

____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court