Case Number: BC622243 Hearing Date: June 25, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Jamison Services, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: None

Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories, Set Two

Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, Set Two

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

On May 31, 2016, plaintiff Archie Cordova filed a complaint against defendant Jamison Services, Inc. for negligence (premises liability) based on a trip and fall incident on June 20, 2014.

Trial is set for August 1, 2018.

LEGAL STANDARD

Interrogatories

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. CCP § 2030.290(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. Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.

Request for Production of Documents

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP § 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. CCP § 2031.300. Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. 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. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, ¶ 8:1487.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Jamison Services, Inc. requests that the court compel plaintiff to serve responses without objections to defendant’s written discovery requests. On March 26, 2018, Defendant served Plaintiff with Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents. The responses were due on April 30, 2018. No responses were provided. Defendant sent a meet and confer letter on May 8, 2018 requesting that responses be provided without objection or Defendant would move to compel. To date, defense counsel has not received responses.

Because defendant properly served discovery requests and plaintiff failed to serve responses, the motions are GRANTED.

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 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 section 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.”

“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” CCP § 2030.040.

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 in the amount of $665.00 for each motion in its notice of motion, but does not provide facts supporting the amount of the monetary sanctions sought in its memorandum of points and authorities or the accompanying declaration of Jacqueline L. Dominguez. Defendant’s memorandum simply states that sanctions are appropriate, and Ms. Dominguez’s declaration states that defendant seeks 5 hours of attorney time and a $60.00 filing fee per motion, but does not provide an hourly rate or information which can be used to determine whether the claimed hourly rate is reasonable. Therefore, defendant’s requests for sanctions are denied for failure to comply with CCP § 2030.040.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff Archie Cordova is ordered to serve on defendant Jamison Services, Inc. verified responses without objections to defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories, Set Two within 20 days. CCP § 2030.290.

Plaintiff Archie Cordova is ordered (1) to serve on defendant a verified response without objections to defendant’s Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, and (2) to produce all documents and things in plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control that are responsive to defendant’s Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, within 20 days. CCP § 2031.300.

Moving defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 25, 2018

_____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court