Case Number: BC703222 Hearing Date: August 22, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) (x5)

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On April 24, 2018, Plaintiffs Eduardo Salazar, Patricia Salazar, Tatiana Salazar (by and through her guardian ad litem Eduardo Salazar), Gabriela Salazar (by and through her guardian ad litem Eduardo Salazar), and Sofia Salazar (by and through her guardian ad litem Eduardo Salazar) (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Toyota Motor North America Inc. and Toyota of Downtown L.A. (“Defendants”). The complaint alleges negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and strict products liability for the failing of Plaintiffs’ brakes in Defendants’ leased vehicle on July 6, 2017.

On July 26, 2019, Defendant Toyota Motor North America, Inc. filed motions to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (Both Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.

Trial is set for October 24, 2019.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS

Defendant Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”) requests that the Court compel Plaintiffs to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) based on Plaintiffs’ failure to provide timely responses.

Defendants also request that the Court impose monetary sanctions of $2,130 against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process.

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. (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.)

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.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

On March 28, 2019, Moving Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) on Plaintiffs. (All Five Declarations of Jordan S. Tabak (“Tabak Decl.”), ¶ 2, Exh. A-C.) Moving Defendant had not received the outstanding responses as of the filing of these motions. (Tabak Decl., ¶ 7.)

The Court finds the motions must be granted. Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition. There is no indication that Plaintiffs acted with a substantial justification or other circumstances supporting a finding that the imposition of monetary sanctions would be unjust.

Moving Defendant requests $2,130 in monetary sanctions for all five motions collectively. (Tabak Decl., ¶ 8.) $1,050 of the total consists of two hours in preparing the motion pertaining to Plaintiff Eduardo Salazar and three hours in traveling to the hearing at a rate of $210 an hour, plus one $60 filing fee. (Ibid.) $1,080 of the total consists of one hour each for drafting the other four motions at a rate of $210 an hour, plus four $60 filing fees. (Ibid.) The Court finds this to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiffs.

The motions are GRANTED.

Plaintiffs are ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Moving Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) within 30 days of this order.

The Court also orders Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs counsel to pay Moving Defendant $2,130 within 30 days of this order, jointly and severally.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.