Case Number: BC665738 Hearing Date: December 12, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Arturo Vasquez-Lopez

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Annie Cruse

Motion to Compel Responses to Judicial Council Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One)

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

On June 20, 2017, Annie Cruse filed a complaint against Arturo Vasquez-Lopez, Yolanda Santizo Gramajo, and Katerina Tana for motor vehicle negligence based on incidents that occurred on July 1, 2015, July 20, 2015, and November 15, 2015.

Defendant Arturo Vasquez-Lopez requests that the court compel plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to defendant’s first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for identification and production of documents and things, served on February 15, 2018. Responses were due by March 22, 2018. In May 2018, defense counsel sent an email to plaintiff’s counsel’s office inquiring as to the overdue responses. Having not received any responses, on September 3 and 27, 2018, defense counsel sent emails to plaintiff’s counsel requesting responses. On September 27, 2018, plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to defense counsel, stating, “I have your messages. I know we served verified responses. I will email . . . them to you.” Defendant contends that as of the filing of the motion, defense counsel has not received responses.

In opposition, plaintiff contends that she timely served responses on March 22, 2018. After the motion was filed, plaintiff’s counsel determined that defense counsel/propounding party had been accidentally omitted from the proof of service of plaintiff’s responses. On November 14, 2018, plaintiff’s counsel sent copies of plaintiff’s responses by email to defense counsel.

The court finds that plaintiff had failed to serve her discovery responses on defense counsel for propounding party. The motion is MOOT though because plaintiff has since served copies of her responses to defense counsel.

Under CCP § 2023.030(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.” Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(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.”

Defendant requests sanctions against plaintiff’s attorneys in the amount of $1,061.25. The court finds that sanctions are warranted and that $510 ($225/hr. x 2 hrs., plus $60 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against plaintiff’s attorney of record, Sean M. Novak. Defense counsel made several reasonable attempts to obtain plaintiff’s discovery responses before having to file a motion to compel.

The court notes that moving party paid only one filing fee and improperly combined three motions into one.

The court ORDERS:

Defendant Arturo Vasquez Lopez is ordered to pay additional filing fees in the amount of $120 within five days.

Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Sean M. Novak, is ordered to pay to moving defendant $510 in monetary sanctions within 30 days.

Moving defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.