Case Number: 19STCV11590 Hearing Date: October 25, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demands for Inspection, Set One

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

BACKGROUND

On April 4, 2019, Plaintiff Josefina Gallardo (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Northgate Gonzalez, LLC (“Defendant”) asserting causes of action for negligence and premises liability arising from a slip-and-fall that occurred on January 6, 2019.

On September 25, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to serve responses, without objection, to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Demands for Inspection, Set One, within 10 days of the hearing on this motion.

Trial is set for October 1, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests that the Court compel Plaintiff to serve on Defendant within 10 days of this hearing responses, without objection, to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Demands for Inspection, Set One.

Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,250.00 to be imposed against Plaintiff, her attorney of record, and anyone who opposes this motion.

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.)

DISCUSSION

On May 6, 2019, Defendant propounded and served Plaintiff with an initial set of discovery which included Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Demands for Inspection, Set One. (Declaration of Brent Gerome (“Gerome Decl.”) ¶ 4.) On June 28, 2019, both parties agreed to an extension of time to provide responses to these discovery requests. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Defendant’s counsel agreed that Plaintiff’s responses would be due on July 16, 2019. (Id.) Defendant’s counsel agreed to an additional extension of time, allowing Plaintiff to serve responses by July 30, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Still, Defendant received no responses. (Id. at ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to properly propounded discovery requests is without substantial justification, entitling Defendant to sanctions. Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,250. (Gerome Decl. ¶ 11.) This amount is for 2 hours to prepare the motion, 2 hours to analyze any opposition and to prepare a reply brief, 1 hour to prepare for the hearing, and 2 hours to travel to and from the hearing at an hourly rate of $170, plus a $60 filing fee. (Id.) The Court finds this to be an unreasonable amount of sanctions considering the simplicity of the motion and the absence of an opposition. But the Court also finds that because Defendant improperly combined three motions into one, Defendant must pay two additional filing fees– $120. The Court finds $860 ($170/hr x 4 hrs plus 3 $60 filing fees) to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiff.

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

The Court orders Plaintiff to serve response, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Demands for Inspection, Set One within 30 days of this order.

The Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record to pay Defendant $860 within 30 days of this order. The Court also orders Defendant to pay additional filing fees totaling $120 to the Court within 10 days of this order.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.