Case Number: BC704789 Hearing Date: October 30, 2018 Dept: 4

(1) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories

(2) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Special Interrogatories

(3) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Request for Production and Inspection of Documents and Other Tangible Things

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

On May 3, 2018, plaintiff Cedella Boche filed a complaint against defendants Anthony Stalaj and Fox Rent a Car, Inc. for motor vehicle negligence based on an incident that occurred on May 31, 2016.

Trial is set for November 4, 2019.

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 Anthony Stalaj requests that the court compel plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to defendant’s first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for production and inspection of documents, served on June 15, 2018. Responses were due by July 20, 2018. Defense counsel gave an extension to August 3, 2018. On August 17, 2018, having not received responses, defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter to plaintiff’s counsel requesting responses within ten days. To date, defense counsel has not received responses.

The court finds that defendant properly served discovery requests and plaintiff failed to serve verified responses. The motions are GRANTED.

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/or her counsel of record in the amount of $860 for each motion. The court finds that $580 ($200/hr. x 2 hrs., plus $180 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against plaintiff and her attorney of record in total for all three motions.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff Cedella Boche is ordered to serve on defendant verified responses without objections to defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days.

Plaintiff Cedella Boche is ordered (1) to serve on defendant a verified response without objections to defendant’s Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents and Other

Tangible Things, Set One, and (2) to produce all documents and things in plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to defendant’s demand, within 20 days.

Plaintiff and her attorney of record, Bauman Law, APLC, are ordered to pay to defendant $580 in monetary sanctions within 30 days in total for three motions.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 30, 2018

____________________________

Christopher K. Lui

Judge of the Superior Court