Case Number: 19STCV17878 Hearing Date: December 17, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No oppositions have been filed.

BACKGROUND

On May 22, 2019, Plaintiff Gevorg Avetisyan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Sael Bartolucci (“Defendant”) for negligence arising out of a motor vehicle accident.

On November 4, 2019, Defendant filed three motions to compel responses from Plaintiff.

Trial is set for November 18, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant requests a court order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to the Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One).

Defendant also requests a court order imposing $443.15 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney of record for each motion.

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. (See 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, subd. (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.)

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

Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set One) on August 9, 2019. (Bilbrew Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Plaintiff’s responses were due on September 13, 2019. (Id., ¶ 3.) No responses were received by that date despite Defendant’s counsel contacting Plaintiff’s counsel, and no responses had been received as of the filing date for these motions to compel.. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.)

As Defendant properly served discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide responses to the discovery requests served on Plaintiff.

Defendant requests $443.15 ($143.75/hr x 2 hrs, plus $61.65 filing fee and $94.00 CourtCall expenses) in monetary sanctions for each motion. (Id. ¶ 5.) The Court finds this amount to be unreasonable given the motion is relatively basic and unopposed. The Court also finds the awarding of CourtCall expenses for each motion to be duplicative. The Court thus awards monetary sanctions in a total amount of $853.95 ($143.75/hr x 4 hrs, plus $184.95 filing fees plus $94 for CourtCall).

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motions are GRANTED.

The Court orders Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set One) within 20 days of this order.

The Court also orders Plaintiff and his counsel, John Ksajikian, to pay Defendant, jointly and severally, monetary sanctions in the total amount of $853.95, within 30 days of this order.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.