Case Number: 18AVCV00180 Hearing Date: September 10, 2019 Dept: A15

McCuin v. Ammann, et al

Background

This personal injury action arises from an automobile accident which occurred on or about January 03, 2017 at or near an intersection on Avenue J in Lancaster wherein Plaintiff Timmy Michell McCuin (“Plaintiff”) was allegedly struck by the vehicle driven by Defendants Catherine Marie Ammann (“C. Ammann”) and Jonathan Edward Ammann (“E. Ammann” and collectively the “Defendants”).

On December 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Complaint against Defendants alleging a single cause of action sounding in negligence. On February 22, 2019, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint, raising 15 affirmative defenses.

On August 06, 2019, Defendants filed the instant three (3) motions to compel responses to form interrogatories (“FI”), special interrogatories (“SI”), and requests for production of documents (“RFP”).

Reminder of November 05, 2018 General Order Re: Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil – The Parties are reminded that the General Order of November 05, 2018 re e-filing requires e-filed PDF’s to be searchable and bookmarked, with a courtesy copy to be provided directly to Dept. A-15. (11/5/198 Standing Order, ss (c), (d)). Counsel are directed to be in compliance with the 11/5/18 standing order with future e-filings.

2. Analysis

Motions to Compel Responses

A party to whom interrogatories or demands for production have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory or demand by providing an answer or a statement of compliance, or by providing an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.210, 2031.210.) If an objection is made to an interrogatory or demand for production or part thereof, or an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the specific ground or particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.240, 2031.240.) Responses should be served within 30 days of service of the interrogatories or demand for production. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, 2031.260.) A motion to compel responses may be brought where a responding party fails to timely respond to written discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

Defendants served Plaintiff with FI, SI, and RFP on February 22, 2019, and despite sending a meet and confer letter on May 31, 2019, Plaintiff has yet to provide responses.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions. Plaintiff is ordered to provide Defendants with verified responses within 20 days of service of notice of this ruling.

b. Sanctions

Unsuccessfully making or opposing a motion to compel responses to a request for production or interrogatories can subject a party to sanctions unless that party acted with substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), & 2031.300, subd. (c).) Additionally, the California Rules of Court provide that “[t]he 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Defendants have requested sanctions in the amount of $585.00 in connection with each of the three motions to compel responses. There is no indication that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in failing to provide timely responses to Defendants’ initial discovery requests. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS sanctions in the amount of $1,755.00.

3. Conclusion

The three motions to compel are GRANTED, with responses due within 20 days of service of notice of this ruling.

The Court also GRANTS the requests for sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,755.00, to be paid within 30 days of notice of this ruling.

Moving party to give notice.