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

Case Number: BC625646 Hearing Date: April 27, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Norma Sanchez

RESPONDING PARTY: None

Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

On June 30, 2016, plaintiffs Jose Gomez-Romero and Antonio Garcia-Vela filed a complaint against defendants Freddy Terrazas, Terrazas & Times Entertainment, Marathon Car Rental, and Norma Sanchez for motor vehicle negligence based on an incident that occurred on July 23, 2015.

Trial is set for May 7, 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 Norma Sanchez requests that the court compel plaintiffs to serve verified responses without objections to defendant’s first sets of form interrogatories and request for identification and production of documents, served on May 22, 2017. Plaintiffs failed to serve responses by the due date. On July 11, 2017, defense counsel sent to plaintiffs’ counsel a meet and confer letter, giving a ten-day extension. On December 8, 2017, defense counsel sent another letter, giving another ten-day extension to respond. Plaintiffs’ counsel requested an extension to February 12, 2018, which defense counsel gave. To date, defense counsel has not received responses.

Because defendant properly served discovery requests and plaintiffs failed to serve verified responses, the motion is 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 plaintiffs and their attorney of record, Michael Anthony Sanchez, in the amount of $565. The court finds that $285 ($150/hr. x 1.5 hrs. plus $120 filing fee) is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded against plaintiffs and their attorney of record.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiffs Jose Gomez-Romero and Antonio Garcia-Vela are ordered to serve on defendant Norma Sanchez verified responses without objections to defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days.

Plaintiffs are ordered (1) to serve on defendant a verified response without objections to defendant’s Request for Identification and Production of Documents, Set One, and (2) to produce all documents and things in plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to defendant’s request, within 20 days.

The court orders plaintiffs and their attorney of record, Michael Anthony Sanchez, are to pay to defendant Norma Sanchez a monetary sanction in the amount of $345 within 30 days.

The court orders defendant to pay an additional $60 filing fee because defendant improperly combined two motions into one.

Moving defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2018

____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court