Case Number: BC672655 Hearing Date: June 21, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Demand for Production of Documents

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

On August 18, 2017, Plaintiff Randi King (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Charles Guadagnoli (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 100 for vehicular negligence and negligence per se.

On March 12, 2019, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel responses.

On April 4, 2019, the Court, on its own motion, advanced and continued the hearing from May 17, 2019 to June 21, 2019.

Trial is set for August 19, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant requests a court order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Demand for Production of Documents (Set One).

Defendant also requests a court order imposing $606.65 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

LEGAL STANDARD

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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (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. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) 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.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (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.”

DISCUSSION

Defendant served Plaintiff with his Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) on May 1, 2018. (Kalpakian Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Exs. A, B.) The responses were due on June 5, 2018. (Id., ¶¶ 2-3.) Defendant’s counsel received an email from Plaintiff’s counsel’s office on June 4, 2018 requesting an extension of time to respond to the discovery requests until June 19, 2018. (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. C.) Defendant’s counsel agreed to the extension of time. (Id.)

Having not received any responses, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel’s office on July 24, 2018, requesting an update on the responses and granting Plaintiff an additional extension until July 31, 2018 to provide the discovery responses. (Id., ¶ 5, Ex. D.) After receiving no response to the July 24, 2018 email, Defendant’s counsel sent a follow-up email on September 5, 2018, requesting discovery responses or a dismissal of the case if Plaintiff was no longer interested in prosecuting her claims. (Id., ¶ 6, Ex. E.) Defendant’s counsel also granted an extension of time to respond until September 10, 2018. (Id.) After still not receiving any response, Defendant’s counsel sent another follow-up email on November 16, 2018, requesting the status of the discovery responses and discussing the need to continue the February 19, 2019 trial date because of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the discovery requests. (Id., ¶ 7, Ex. F.)

Still receiving no responses, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s attorney on January 22, 2019 to inform him that he would be proceeding with motions to compel. (Id., ¶ 8, Ex. G.) Defendant’s counsel sent another email on January 29, 2019 granting a final extension of time to provide discovery responses until February 6, 2019. (Id., ¶ 9, Ex. H.) To date, Plaintiff has not served any responses to the discovery requests and there has been no reasons provided as to Plaintiff’s inability to serve responses. (Id., p. 9:14-17.)

As Defendant properly served discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide responses to the discovery requests served on Plaintiff.

Defendant requests $606.65 ($150/hr x 3.5 hrs, plus $61.65 filing fee and $20 parking) in monetary sanctions. (Kalpakian Decl., p. 9: 18-22.) The Court finds this amount to be reasonable and, thus, awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $606.65.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

The Court orders Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) within 20 days of this order.

The Court also orders Plaintiff to pay Defendant $606.65 within 30 days of this order.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.