2017-00208533-CU-PA

Douglas Roth vs. David Dansky

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1) Form 2) Special 3) Production

Filed By: Woo, Peggy L.

Defendant Sarah Dansky’s (“Defendant”) motion for an order compelling responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED.

Defendant served the discovery on May 31, 2017, to Plaintiff Douglas Roth’s (“Plaintiff”) former attorney of record, Christopher A. Price. Mr. Price did not serve any responses before he was relieved as counsel on November 29, 2017.

Defendant then served the discovery on Plaintiff in pro per on December 21, 2017.

Plaintiff has not served any responses.

No later than April 16, 2018, Plaintiff shall serve verified written responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

Sanctions are denied because the motion was not opposed. Although CRC 3.1348(a) purports to authorize sanctions if a motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the CRC must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. ( Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v Firmaterr Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.) However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481.)