Case Number: BC640347 Hearing Date: July 26, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendants SDA Management Company, L.P., Vista Plaza Management Company, Inc., SDA Management Group LP (Doe 1)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories

Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories

Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Attendance at Deposition

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

On December 1, 2016, plaintiff Louie Sodaro filed a complaint against defendants Deborah Ann Bean, Vista Plaza Management Co., Inc., Vista Plaza, and Papa John’s Pizza for motor vehicle negligence and premises liability.

Trial is set for October 2, 2018.

LEGAL STANDARD

Interrogatories

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. CCP §2030.290(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.

Request for Production of Documents

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP §2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. CCP §2031.300. Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. 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. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 8:1487.

Depositions

CCP §2025.450(a) provides: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . , without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.”

DISCUSSION

Defendants request that the court compel plaintiff to serve responses to defendants’ first sets of form and special interrogatories and demand for production of documents. Defendants also request an order compelling plaintiff to appear for his deposition.

On April 6, 2017, defendants served their written discovery requests. On May 11, 2017, defense counsel granted plaintiff a 30-day extension. Responses were then due by June 11, 2017. On July 30, 2017, defense counsel sent a letter to plaintiff’s counsel requesting the overdue responses. On September 19, 2017, defense counsel contacted plaintiff’s counsel requesting the overdue responses. Defendants contend that defense counsel continued to place multiple calls to plaintiff’s counsel. On April 26, May 8, and June 18, 2018, defense counsel sent letters to plaintiff’s counsel regarding the overdue responses. To date, defense counsel has not received responses.

On October 10, 2017, defendants served a notice of taking deposition upon plaintiff, for November 6, 2017. On November 3, 2017, plaintiff’s counsel notified defense counsel that he had been unable to confirm whether plaintiff would appear. On November 6, 2017, plaintiff failed to appear. On May 8, 2018, defendants served another notice of taking deposition, for June 19, 2018. On June 18, 2018, plaintiff’s counsel was unable to confirm whether plaintiff would appear. On June 19, 2018, plaintiff failed to appear.

Because defendants properly served discovery requests and a notice of deposition and plaintiff failed to respond and appear for his deposition, the motions are GRANTED.

Under CCP § 2023.030(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.” Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

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.” CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(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.”

Defendants request sanctions against plaintiff in the amount of $1,430 in total for all four motions. The court finds that a total of $919 ($150/hr. x 2.5 hrs., filing fees of $240, $304 court reporter fees) is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded against plaintiff in total for the four motions.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff Louie Sodaro is ordered to serve on defendants verified responses without objections to defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days. CCP § 2030.290.

Plaintiff Sodaro is ordered to serve on defendants a verified written response without objections to defendants’ Demand for Production, Set One and to produce all documents and things in plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control which are responsive to defendants’ demand, within 20 days. CCP § 2031.300.

Plaintiff is ordered to appear for his deposition within 20 days on a mutually agreeable date and time, at the law offices of Hartsuyker, Stratman & Williams-Abrego, 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017.

Plaintiff Louie Sodaro is ordered to pay a monetary sanction to defendants in the amount of $919 for all four motions within 30 days.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 26, 2018