Case Number: BC706297 Hearing Date: June 06, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Both Set Three)

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

On May 15, 2018, Plaintiffs Andres Ortega and Natalia Aguilar (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Aaron Ceja and Herminda Chavez (“Defendants”) alleging motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on May 15, 2016.

On April 23, 2019, Defendants filed two motions to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and two motions to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One).

Trial is set for November 15, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request that the Court issue an order compelling Plaintiffs to provide responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Both Set One).

Defendants also request the Court to impose $2,240.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ counsel of record for bringing these four motions, each costing $560.00.

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. (See 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.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

DISCUSSION

On August 9, 2018, Defendants served four sets of discovery on Plaintiffs. (All Four Declarations of Roy Garcia (“Garcia Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exh. A.) This discovery consists of two sets of Form Interrogatories (Set One) individually served on Plaintiffs and two sets of Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) also individually served on Plaintiffs. (Ibid.) On December 14, 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Defendants’ counsel that Plaintiffs’ counsel had been substituted out. (Garcia Decl., ¶ 5.) However, there has been no substitution of counsel according to the documents filed with the Court. Defendants are plainly entitled to an order directly that Plaintiffs comply with the properly served discovery requests.

Defendants request $2,240.00 ($250.00/hr. x 8 hrs. plus four $60.00 filing fees) for bringing the four motions against Plaintiffs. (Garcia Decl., ¶ 7.) The Court finds this amount to be an unreasonable for these four substantially similar motions. Rather, the Court finds $1,240.00 ($250/hr. x 4 hrs. plus four $60.00 filing fees) to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, jointly and severally.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

The Court orders Plaintiffs to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendants Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Both Set One) within 20 days of this order.

The Court also orders Plaintiffs and their counsel of record, Michael Martin, to pay Defendants $1,240.00, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.