Case Number: BC675074 Hearing Date: January 18, 2019 Dept: 4B

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

On July 20, 2017, Plaintiff Dorinda Mae Brown (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants EAN Holdings, LLC, Zuber Murad (erroneously sued as Zuber Aiyubmlrad) (“Defendant”), and Annet McCrosky (collectively, “Defendants”) for negligence relating to a July 23, 2015 automobile accident. Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to 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 July 16, 2018, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Chelsee M. Sachs, ¶ 3; Exh. A.) On August 20, 2018, Plaintiff requested a two-week extension, which was granted. (Sachs Decl., ¶ 4.) On September 4, 2018, no responses were received, and defense counsel granted another courtesy two-week extension. (Sachs Decl., ¶ 5.) Defense counsel granted a third extension. (Sachs Decl., ¶ 6.) Defense counsel sought an Informal Discovery Conference. However, there has been no communication from Plaintiff’s counsel since the first extension was requested and granted. (Sachs Decl., ¶ 7.) Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses and monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff failed to file oppositions to these Motions and it is undisputed that Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. Accordingly, the Motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s discovery requests within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff and counsel, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $855.00, for three hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $225.00 and $180.00 in filing fees, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.