Case Number: BC687516 Hearing Date: June 06, 2018 Dept: 7

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY; MOTION DENIED AS MOOT

On December 19, 2017, Plaintiff Ana Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Target Corporation (“Defendant”) for premises liability and general negligence relating to a June 22, 2017 trip and fall incident at Defendant’s store in Inglewood. On February 15, 2018, Defendant served Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents. (Declaration of Adrienne R. Hahn, ¶ 2.) Defendant granted extensions on responses to April 5, 2018. (Hahn Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5.) Plaintiff requested a third extension, which was not granted. (Hahn Decl., ¶ 6.) Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s discovery responses and monetary sanctions.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code of 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 of 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.)

Plaintiff’s counsel argues the delay in serving responses was due to a former legal assistant failing to follow through with serving the responses. (Declaration of Raymond Ghermezian, ¶ 3.) Counsel states Plaintiff’s responses were finalized, but left on the legal assistant’s desk and not served. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel contends these Motions are moot because responses have already been served.

However, these Motions to compel were filed on April 18, 2018. Plaintiff’s responses to discovery were verified and served on May 9, 2018. Therefore, given the delay, it does not appear responses were completed and simply not served prior to Defendant filing these Motions.

These Motions to compel responses are denied as MOOT. However, the court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even where the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).)

The Court notes only two filing fees were paid for the motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for production of documents, which should have been filed as three separate motions and three filing fees paid. Defendant is ordered to pay the additional filing fee and bring proof of payment to the hearing on these Motions. If the additional filing fee is not paid, the hearing will be continued so that payment may be made.

Monetary sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff’s counsel only, in the amount of $795.00, for two hours preparing these motions and one hour attending the hearing at counsel’s rate of $205.00 per hour, plus the $120.00 filing fees already paid and the $60.00 filing fee ordered to be paid. This monetary sanction is ordered to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.