Case Number: VC064437 Hearing Date: April 24, 2018 Dept: SEC

RUDICK v. FELIKIAN

CASE NO.: VC064437

HEARING: 04/24/18

JUDGE: ;ORI ANN FOURNIER

#5

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff DAVID RUDICK’s responses to special interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED. CCP §2030.290.

Plaintiff DAVID RUDICK and his counsel of record are ORDERED to pay Defendant IRES, INC. and its counsel of record, sanctions in the total amount of $675.00 ($205/hr. x 3 hrs.) + ($60 filing fee) within 15 days of the date of this hearing.

Plaintiff DAVID RUDICK is ORDERED to provide verified responses, without objection within 15 days of the date of this hearing.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition filed as of April 19, 2018.

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (CCP §2030.290.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. The failure to timely respond also waives all objections.

Here, Defendant has shown that Special Interrogatories (set one), Special Interrogatories (set one) were properly served on Plaintiff on December 6, 2017. The deadline to respond has expired, and no responses of any kind have been provided. Defendant filed this motion on February 20, 2018, over two months after service of the discovery. As of April 19, 2018, Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition to Defendant’s motion. Therefore, the Motion to Compel is granted, and Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses without objection. If any objections are asserted, it will be tantamount to no response at all and will be deemed a violation of this Court’s order.

“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files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiff does not oppose the instant motions to compel. As such, there is nothing to show that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification and the Court knows of no other circumstances which would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Therefore, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is granted as set forth above.