Case Number: BC720269 Hearing Date: February 08, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND MONETARY SANCTIONS; GRANTED

On August 30, 2018, Plaintiffs Delaram Sabzerou, Daniel Sabzerou, Mahnaz Sabzerou, The Estate of Harry Habib Sabzerou, and Mahnas Sabzerou (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this wrongful death action against Defendant Talia Gilardi (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s responses to written discovery requests.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

On October 24, 2018, Plaintiffs served Set One of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for production of documents on Defendant. (Declaration of Tal Rubin, ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs granted an extension on responses, however, to date, no discovery responses have been received. (Rubin Decl., ¶¶ 3, 9.) Plaintiffs’ counsel sent an email to defense counsel regarding the outstanding responses. On December 21, 2018, defense counsel responded that it was the first time he had heard of the past due discovery. (Rubin Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6.) Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s responses to discovery and monetary sanctions.

Defendant states responses without objections have been served and this motion is moot. Defense counsel states the attorney who was handling this case has left the firm and it was only recently that their office discovered responses were outstanding. (Declaration of Leah A. Reeves, ¶ 3; Exh. A.) Defense counsel states there was no willful misuse of the discovery process.

The Motion to compel is denied as MOOT. However, even after learning of the overdue discovery on December 21, 2018, Defendant did not serve responses until January 24, 2019. The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even where the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).) Monetary sanctions are GRANTED and imposed against Defendant and defense counsel, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $250.00 for one hour at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.