Case Number: BC665059 Hearing Date: December 27, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT LOERA TRUCKING’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

On May 16, 2019, Plaintiff Ryan Bergstrom (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Loera Trucking (“Loera”) and Sandor Balmore for injuries from a March 6, 2018 motor vehicle incident. On August 15, Loera served its first sets of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Demand for Production of Documents on Plaintiff. Plaintiff obtained two extensions on responses. Loera denied the request for a third extension. Loera’s counsel then sent a meet and confer letter and requested Plaintiff provide responses by October 31, 2019. On November 11, 2019, defense counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel they would be filing motions to compel, and Plaintiff’s counsel stated a new firm was substituting in. On November 12, 2019, defense counsel called the firm that was supposedly substituting in for Plaintiff’s counsel and left a voicemail. On November 19, 2019, defense counsel called and emailed the prior firm to advise that they had not yet received a substitution of counsel form and that motions to compel were forthcoming if Plaintiff did not provide responses. Plaintiff did not serve responses. Loera filed the motions to compel on November 22, 2019. On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff’s new firm filed a substitution of counsel.

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; 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).)

Plaintiff opposes these motions on the grounds that his counsel at the time, Heidari Law Group, did not inform him that discovery requests were outstanding and that the motion is moot because his new counsel, The Simon Law Group, has repeatedly offered to provide verified responses. However, Plaintiff does not submit any evidence that he ever served responses. Accordingly, the motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to Loera’s first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents within twenty (20) 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).)

Plaintiff argues sanctions are not warranted because he was not aware of any discovery and his counsel was not informed of the outstanding discovery until November 25, 2019 when his former counsel forwarded the motions to compel. However, Plaintiff retained The Simon Law Group as counsel on September 20, 2019, and his new counsel received Plaintiff’s client file on October 17, 2019. Plaintiff did not file the motions to compel until more than a month later on November 22, 2019. The old and new counsel did not keep defense counsel advised about which firm was responsible for the case and did not timely file a substitution of counsel. Accordingly, Loera’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff’s prior and current counsel of record, jointly and severally in the reduced amount of $1,020.00, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.