Lawzilla Additional Information: this matter was taken off calendar and no final order was made

Number: BC686980 Hearing Date: September 24, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Defendant Gelson’s Markets (“Defendant”) moves for orders compelling plaintiff Paula D’Andrea (“Plaintiff”) to respond to its Form Interrogatories, Set One (“Form Interrogatories”) and Demand to Produce for Inspection and Copying, Set One (“Demands for Inspection”). Defendant’s counsel served Plaintiff’s counsel with the Form Interrogatories on April 10, 2019 via mail. Plaintiff’s responses were due on May 16, 2019. On May 21, 2019, Defendant’s counsel inquired as to the status of discovery responses; Plaintiff’s counsel said they intended to work on them over the holiday weekend and would provide them by Tuesday or Wednesday. On June 3, 2019, Defendant’s counsel sent another email asking about the status of the discovery responses. Plaintiff’s counsel responded on June 6 and informed Defendant’s counsel that he had been ill and promised to have the responses by June 14, 2019.

Defendant sent a meet and confer letter on July 18, 2019 demanding responses without objections by July 25, 2019. The parties met and conferred and Plaintiff promised to provide responses shortly. On August 6, 2019, Defendant sent another meet and confer and requested responses without objections by August 13, 2019. No responses were provided. There is no opposition to the motions

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; Sinaiko 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.)

Defendant’s Motions to compel are GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide complete verified responses, without objections, within twenty 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 sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $570.00, comprising of 2.5 hours of attorney time at $180 per hour and $120 in filing fees for the two motions, to be paid within twenty days of the date of this order.

Moving party to give notice.