Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Alexander Solhi who is being sanctioned by the court.

Case Number: BC651222 Hearing Date: April 23, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ali Bawab

RESPONDING PARTY: None

(1) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Answer Form Interrogatories, Set No. One

(2) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Answer Special Interrogatories, Set No. One

(3) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

On February 21, 2017, plaintiff Irma Arredondo filed a complaint against defendant Ali Bawab for motor vehicle negligence based on an incident that occurred on February 27, 2015.

Trial is set for August 21, 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.

DISCUSSION

Defendant requests that the court compel plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to defendant’s first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for inspection and production of documents, served on June 9, 2017. Responses were due by July 14, 2017. On July 26, 2017, defense counsel granted to plaintiff a three week extension to respond. On August 24, 2017, defense counsel granted to plaintiff another extension, to

September 4, 2017. On December 11, 2017, defense counsel sent a letter to plaintiff’s counsel requesting responses. To date, defense counsel has not received responses.

Because defendant properly served discovery requests and plaintiff failed to serve verified responses, 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.”

Defendant requests sanctions against plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorneys of record, Ali Alexander Solhi, Esq. and Law Offices of A. Alexander Solhi, in the amount of $1,580 for all three motions. The court finds that $580 ($200/hr. x 2 hrs. plus $180 in filing fees) is a

reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded against plaintiff and her attorney of record in total for all three motions.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff Irma Arredondo is ordered to serve on defendant Ali Bawab verified responses without objections to defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days.

Plaintiff is ordered (1) to serve on defendant a verified response without objections to defendant’s Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set No. One, and (2) to produce all documents and things in plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to defendant’s demand, within 20 days.

The court orders plaintiff and her attorneys of record, Ali Alexander Solhi, Esq. and Law Offices of A. Alexander Solhi, to pay to defendant a monetary sanction in the amount of $580 within 30 days in total for all three motions.

Moving defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 23, 2018

____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court