Case Number: VC065749 Hearing Date: June 14, 2018 Dept: SEC

DELTA DAWGS CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. LI

CASE NO.: VC065749

HEARING: 06/14/18

JUDGE: LORI ANN FOURNIER

#6

TENTATIVE ORDER

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

Defendant XING LI and his counsel of record are ORDERED to pay Plaintiff and its counsel of record, sanctions in the total amount of $460.00 ($200/hr. x 2 hrs.) + ($60 costs) no later than 15 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Defendant LI is ORDERED to provide verified responses and documents to Special Interrogatories (Set One) without objection no later than 15 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended pursuant to agreement of the parties.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition filed as of June 12, 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. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The failure to timely respond also waives all objections.

Here, Plaintiff has shown that Special Interrogatories (set one) was properly served on Defendant LI on March 9, 2017. The deadline to respond has expired, and no responses of any kind have been provided. Plaintiff filed this motion on April 11, 2018, over one year after service of the discovery. As of June 12, 2018, Defendant LI has not filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. Therefore, the Motion to Compel is granted, and Defendant LI 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).)

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