Case Number: EC060930    Hearing Date: October 31, 2014    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING (10/31/14)
#3
EC 060930
HCAL, LLC v. TAN

Judgment Creditor HCAL LLC’s Motion to Compel Post Judgment Discovery

TENTATIVE:
UNOPPOSED Motion to compel answers to post judgment discovery from defendant Charles Tan is GRANTED. Defendant and Judgment Debtor Charles Tan is ordered to provide responses, without objection, within 10 days.

Request for monetary sanctions [$760.10 requested] is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:
CCP sections 708.020 and 708.030 permit a judgment creditor to propound interrogatories and document demands on a judgment debtor to obtain “information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment.” Under CCP section 708.020(c), “Interrogatories served pursuant to this section may be enforced, to the extent practicable, in the same manner as interrogatories in a civil action.”

The propounding of interrogatories is appropriate here, and the interrogatories appear to be directed to obtaining information in aid of enforcement of the money judgment. [See Ex. 4].

Under CCP § 2030.290, “if a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,” that party “waives any legal right to exercise the option to produce…as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” Under subdivision (b), “the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”

In this case, interrogatories have been directed to the judgment debtor and judgment debtor has failed to provide timely responses. Judgment creditor has appropriately moved for an order to compel. Accordingly, judgment debtor has waived any option to produce, as well as all objections and is ordered to respond.

Sanctions
CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuse of the discovery process includes “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP section 2023.030(a), “the 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.”

In this case, judgment debtor has failed to respond to an authorized method of discovery and the propounding party has provided evidence that it has incurred expenses as a result of the conduct.

The declaration in support of the motion does not provide hours or billing rates in support of the sum sought. CCP § 2023.040 requires that:
“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party and attorney against whom the sanction is sought and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”

Here, the declaration states, “Plaintiff has incurred Certain Costs and Fees necessarily in pursuing this action.” [Nelson Decl., para. 12]. While this arguably does not provide sufficient facts supporting the amount sought, the amount sought here, $760.10, is reasonable on its face. Sanctions are awarded in that amount.