Case Number: BC721910 Hearing Date: October 24, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents

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

BACKGROUND

On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff Antonio Salazar (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Frank Garcia (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle and general negligence arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 15, 2016.

On September 16, 2019, Defendant filed the instant motions to compel responses.

Trial is set for March 16, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant requests a court order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set One).

Defendant also requests a court order imposing $443.15 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for each motion.

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

Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set One) on May 28, 2019. (Peterson Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Plaintiff’s responses were due on July 2, 2019. (Id., ¶ 4.) No responses were received. (Id.) On July 19, 2019, Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel, reminding Plaintiff of the failure to timely respond and unilaterally granting Plaintiff an extension until July 24, 2019 to provide verified responses without objections. (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. B.) After still not receiving any responses to the discovery requests, Defendant’s counsel sent a second meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel on August 1, 2019, again reminding Plaintiff of his failure to timely respond and unilaterally granting Plaintiff an extension until August 1, 2019 to provide verified responses without objections. (Id., ¶ 5, Ex. C.) To date, no responses have been received. (Id., ¶ 6.)

As Defendant properly served discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide responses to the discovery requests served on Plaintiff.

Defendant requests $443.15 ($143.75/hr x 2 hrs, plus $61.65 filing fee and $94.00 CourtCall expenses) in monetary sanctions for each motion. (Peterson Decl., ¶ 9.) The Court finds this amount to be unreasonable given the motions are basic and unopposed. The Court thus awards monetary sanctions in a total amount of $648.55 ($143.75/hr x 3 hrs, plus $123.30 filing fees and $94.00 for CourtCall expenses).

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motions are GRANTED.

The Court orders Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set One) within 20 days of this order.

The Court also orders Plaintiff and counsel Michael G. Rix to pay Defendant, jointly and severally, monetary sanctions in the total amount of $648.55, within 30 days of this order.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.