Lawzilla Additional Information: No hearing was held and no final order made

Case Number: 19STCP03006 Hearing Date: August 28, 2019 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

(2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories

(3) Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Moving Party: Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company

Resp. Party: None

The motion to compel responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED.

The motion to compel responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED.

The motion to compel responses to request for production of documents is GRANTED.

Petitioner’s request for sanctions against Esguerra and his counsel is GRANTED in part in the amount of $900.00.

BACKGROUND:

Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company (“Allstate”) commenced this action on July 16, 2019 by filing a petition against Respondent John Esguerra (“Esguerra”) for assignment of case number in uninsured motorist action.

Allstate alleges that “Respondent seeks to have a case number assigned to the above entitled uninsured motorist arbitration pursuant to Insurance Code Section 1158.2(f)(1)” and “a case number is needed by the respondent to allow the filing of a Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery in this matter.” (Petition, ¶ 1.)

On July 29, 2019, Allstate filed the instant motions to compel responses to (1) form interrogatories; (2) special interrogatories; and (3) production of documents. These motions have not been opposed by Esguerra.

ANALYSIS:

A. Relevant Law

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom requests for production are propounded within 30 days after service of the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260(a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, “the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).) By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)

For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 906.) Indeed, “[o]nce [a party] ‘fail[ed] to serve a timely response,’ the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party’s] motion to compel responses.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)

Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.010, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2033.280(b).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c) states, in relevant part: “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.

B. Discussion

1. Discovery Requests

Allstate moves the Court for an order compelling Esguerra to serve answers to Special Interrogatories (set 1), Form Interrogatories (set 1) and Request for Production of Documents (set 1), which were served on him as a claimant on February 27, 2019. (SROG Motion, p. 2:3-5; FROG Motion, p. 2:2-5; RFPD Motion, p. 2:2-6.)

Allstate explains that after several granting several extensions, “on June 10, 2019 during a telephonic conference with the claimant’s attorney, it was agreed that Respondent would grant one final extension until June 28, 2019 for the Discovery Responses.” (SROG Motion, p. 3:25-27; FROG Motion, p. 3:26-27; RFPD Motion, p. 3:25-27; Ex. L.) Allstate asserts that “on June 25, 2019, as no Discovery Responses had yet arrived, Respondent called the Claimant and left a voice message reminding Claimant’s counsel hat the Discovery responses were due on June 28, 2019.” (SROG Motion, pp. 3:27-4:2; FROG Motion, pp. 3:27-4:2; RFPD Motion, pp. 3:27-4:3; Ex. M.) Allstate argues that Esguerra made no attempts to respond to Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, or Requests for Production of Documents. (SROG Motion, p. 4:19-20; FROG Motion, p. 4:19-20; RFPD Motion, p. 4:21-22.)

Allstate argues that it “has showed a reasonable and good faith attempt to provide information to settle this matter and has also provided Claimant with ample time and extension to submit his discovery responses.” (SROG Motion, p. 4:3-5; FROG Motion, p. 4:3-5; RFPD Motion, p. 4:4-6.) Allstate argues that “Claimant’s unwillingness to settle this matter or to meet and confer on this issue is evidenced by Claimant’s failure to provide responses to” the discovery requests propounded by Allstate. (SROG Motion, p. 4:5-7; FROG Motion, p. 4:5-7; RFPD Motion, p. 4:6-8.)

Allstate is entitled to an order compelling compliance with her discovery requests for Special & Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One because Esguerra has failed to produce responses and documents responsive to these discovery requests.

The Court GRANTS Allstate’s motions to compel responses to Form & Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

2. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010(d) provides for sanctions for misuses of the discovery process, including failing to respond to or submit an authorized method of discovery. Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(a) provides:

“The 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. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. 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.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a).)

Allstate moves the Court for an order requiring Esguerra and/or her attorney to pay Allstate its reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in obtaining this order in the amount of $978.50 for the motion to compel responses to form interrogatories; $540.00 for the motion to compel responses to special interrogatories; and $540.00 for the motion to compel responses to request for production of documents. (SROG Motion, p. 2:5-8; FROG Motion, p. 2:5-8; RFPD Motion, p. 2:7-9.)

Allstate’s counsel asserts that he spent 2 hours on each motion at a rate of $240.00 per motion. (FROG, SROG, and RFPD Palizzolo Decl., ¶ 18.) Allstate’s counsel also asserts that the filing fees for the motion to compel (1) special interrogatories was $60.00 (SROG Palizzolo Decl., ¶ 18); (2) form interrogatories was $498.50 (FROG Palizzolo Decl., ¶ 18); and (3) request for production of documents was $60.00 (RFPD Palizzolo Decl., ¶ 18). This motion is unopposed; nonetheless, the hours spent on each motion are not reasonable.

Each motion is a form motion – no research was needed for any motion; in all likelihood, the motions were simply cut-and-pasted form similar motions already on the attorney’s computer. Further, the filing fee for the form interrogatory motion is $60.00, not $498.50. (See FROG Court Reservation Receipt.)

The Court GRANTS Allstate’s request for sanctions against Esguerra and his counsel in the amount of $900.00.