Case Number: BC668699 Hearing Date: March 25, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT CITY OF WHITTIER AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; GRANTED

On July 18, 2017, Ray Castro (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Whittier (“Defendant”), California Department of Transportation, and Sophia Grace Petoskey (collectively, “Defendants”) for dangerous condition of public property and negligence relating to a July 11, 2016 incident wherein Petoskey’s vehicle allegedly hit a piece of protruding road, causing oil from her vehicle to spill onto the roadway, which caused Plaintiff, riding his bicycle, to fall and sustain injuries. Plaintiff moves to compel discovery responses and monetary sanctions from Defendant. Two motions to compel are scheduled for hearing on March 25, 2019 and two motions are scheduled for hearing on March 26, 2019. The Court rules on all four motions in this Order and the March 26, 2019 hearings are taken off-calendar.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

On September 28, 2018, Plaintiff served Set One of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Admissions, and Request for Production of Documents on Defendant. (Declaration of Assal Assassi, ¶ 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel granted multiple extensions on Defendant’s responses with the final extension granted until January 11, 2019. (Assassi Decl., ¶¶ 6-11.) As of the date of filing these motions, Defendant failed to serve any responses to discovery. (Assassi Decl., ¶ 12.)

Defendant filed no opposition to these Motions, and it is undisputed it failed to serve timely responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Accordingly, the Motions to compel Defendant’s responses to discovery are GRANTED and Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Defendant and defense counsel, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $1,540.00 for four hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $325.00 and $240.00 in filing fees, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.