Case Number: 18STCV06367 Hearing Date: November 07, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One)

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On November 27, 2018, Plaintiff Eddie Magana (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) alleging wrongful acts or omissions of public entity employees in connection with a negligent operation of a bus on October 1, 2018.

On February 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

On March 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

On October 3, 2019, Defendant filed motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (b) and 2031.300, subdivision (b).

Trial is set for May 26, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests that the Court compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide timely responses.

Defendant also asks the Court to impose monetary sanctions of $1,589 against Plaintiff for his abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905–906.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “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.”

DISCUSSION

On December 26, 2018, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) on Plaintiff by U.S. mail. (All three Jenus K. Nourafchan Declarations (“Nourafchan Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Defendant provided two extensions, allowing Plaintiff up until September 27, 2019 to provide the outstanding responses without objections. (Nourafchan Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. B-C.) Defendant had not received responses to the outstanding discovery as of the time Mr. Nourafchan signed his declarations on October 3, 2019. (Ward Decl., ¶ 6.)

The discovery was properly served and Plaintiff failed to provide the requisite responses in a timely fashion. There are no facts presented showing Plaintiff acted with a substantial justification or that other circumstances exist that would make it unjust to impose sanctions.

Defendant’s request of $1,589 in monetary sanctions consists of 4.3 hours in preparing the motions, 3 hours in reviewing oppositions and preparing replies, and 6 appearing at the hearings at a rate of $180 an hour, plus three $15 for parking fees. (Nourafchan ¶ 8) The Court finds this to be an unreasonable amount of sanctions because the motions are nearly duplicative, no opposition or reply was filed, parking costs a fraction of the requested amount near the Spring Street Courthouse, and the hearings are to take place in the same courthouse, in the same department, consecutively. Rather, the Court finds $735 ($180/hr. x 4 hrs. plus one $15 parking fee) to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiff and his counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process.

The motions are therefore GRANTED.

The Court orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) within 30 days of this order.

The Court also orders Plaintiff and his counsel of record pay Defendant $735, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.