Case Number: BC625463 Hearing Date: February 01, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Three) and Request for Production of Documents (Set Three)

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

On June 29, 2016, plaintiff Kathy Kershaw (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint against defendant Marriot Hotel Services Inc., erroneously sued as Marriot International, Inc. (“defendant”) for general negligence and premises liability based on an incident that occurred on June 29, 2014.

Defendant requests that the court compel plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to defendant’s third set of special interrogatories and demand for production of documents and things served on May 3, 2018. Responses were due by June 7, 2018. As of filing this motion, defendant has not received responses.

The court finds that defendant properly served discovery requests and plaintiff failed to respond.

The motions are therefore 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files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”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’s request was properly noticed against plaintiff’s attorney and plaintiff as required under CCP §2023.040.

Defendant requests sanctions against plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney of record in the amount of $1,785.00 for all three motions. The court finds that sanctions are warranted pursuant to CCP §§ §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c). The responses were not served as of the date of the instant motions. Plaintiff has not opposed. There is no basis for a finding that plaintiff acted with substantial justification, and it would not be unjust to award sanctions against a party whose failure to serve discovery responses necessitates motion practice. The court finds that $370.00 ($185/hr. x 2 hrs.) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney of record.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff is ordered (1) to serve on defendant verified responses without objections to defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three, within 20 days, (2) to serve on defendant verified responses without objections to defendant’s Request for Production of Documents and Things, Set Three, and (3) to produce all documents and things in plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to defendant’s request, within 20 days.

Plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney of record are ordered to pay to moving defendant $370.00 in monetary sanctions within 30 days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.