Case Number: BC617536 Hearing Date: March 01, 2019 Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 1

Date: 3/1/19

Case No: BC 617536 Trial Date: None Set

Case Name: Mobin v. Wang, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

(CCP § 2030.290, 2031.300, 2023.010 et seq)

Moving Party: Defendant Tina C. Wang, M.D.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Babak Mobin (No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

CHRONOLOGY

Date Discovery served: November 8, 2018

Date Responses served: NO RESPONSES SERVED

Date Motion served: January 31, 2019 Timely

OPPOSITION:

No opposition.

ANALYSIS:

Under CCP § 2030.290, “if a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,” that party “waives any legal right to exercise the option to produce…as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” Under subdivision (b), “the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”

In this case, interrogatories have been directed to plaintiff and plaintiff has failed to provide timely responses. Defendant has appropriately moved for an order to compel. Accordingly, plaintiff has waived the option to produce, as well as all objections, and is ordered to respond.

Sanctions

With respect to interrogatories, under CCP section 2030.290(c), “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories…”

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuse of the discovery process includes “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP section 2023.030(a), “the 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 the statute, “ the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP §2023.030(a).

Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel, even though no opposition to the motion was filed…”

In this case, plaintiff has failed to respond to an authorized method of discovery and defendant has provided evidence that defendant has incurred expenses as a result of the conduct. Since the motion is unopposed, there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Defendant requests $990. This is less than the sum shown in the declaration to have been incurred, and appears reasonable. The court awards this amount.

RULING:

[No opposition]

Motion of Defendant Tina C. Wang, M.D. for Order Compelling Plaintiff Babak Mobin to Provide Responses to First Set of Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Babak Mobin is ordered to serve responses, without objection, within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $990.00 [$990 requested] are awarded against plaintiff Babak Mobin, payable within 30 days to defendant’s attorneys. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).