Lawzilla Additional Information: Lawzilla believes the court’s final order was to deny the motion for not being timely served.

Case Number: BC587067 Hearing Date: September 17, 2019 Dept: 4A

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

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

BACKGROUND

On July 2, 2015, Plaintiffs Xueyou Chen and Fang Zhou (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Poseidon Trucking Corporation, State Wood, Inc., USJL Express, Inc., Kang Zhou Jin Zhang, and J & L Tucking Corporation (“Defendants”). The complaint alleges negligent super vision, negligent entrustment, and loss of consortium for an automobile collision that occurred on July 7, 2013.

On November 10, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to the complaint naming Defendant Poseidon Trucking as Doe 1.

On February 19, 2019, Defendant-in-Intervention Global Hawk Insurance Company (RRG) filed an answer on behalf of Defendant Poseidon Trucking Corp. (erroneously sued as Poseidon Trucking Corporation).

On August 22, 2019, Defendant-in-Intervention Global Hawk Insurance Company (RRG) filed motions to compel Plaintiffs to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (b), and 2031.300, subdivision (b).

Trial is set for November 13, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant-in-Intervention Global Hawk Insurance Company (RRG) (“Moving Party”) asks the Court to compel Plaintiffs to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) within 10 court days due to Plaintiffs’ failure to provide timely responses.

Defendant also asks the Court to impose $2,420 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and their 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, subd. (d).)

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).)

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

On May 10, 2019, Moving Party served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) on Plaintiffs by U.S. Mail. (Loftis Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A-F.) Defendant had not received responses as of the date Gary Loftis signed his declaration on August 22, 2019. (Loftis Decl., ¶ 9.)

The Court finds the motion must be granted because of Plaintiffs’ failure to provide timely responses to Moving Party’s written discovery. Plaintiffs have not opposed this motion. There is no indication Plaintiffs acted with substantial justification or that circumstances make an imposition of sanctions unjust.

Moving Party’s request for $2,420 in monetary sanctions consists of 3 hours in preparing the motion and 5 hours in preparing a reply and appearing at the hearing at a rate of $295 an hour, plus one $60 filing fee. (Loftis Decl., ¶ 7.) The Court finds this amount to be unreasonable because no reply was filed. Rather, the Court finds $1,535 ($295/hr. x 5 hrs. plus one $60 filing fee) to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, jointly and severally, for their abuse of the discovery process.

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs are ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Moving Party’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) within 20 days of this order.

Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record are ordered to pay Moving Party $1,535, jointly and severally, within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.