Case Number: BC682905 Hearing Date: June 06, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendants David D. Wu, M.D., a professional medical corp., and David D. Wu, M.D.

RESPONDING PARTY: None

Motion to Compel Responses to Collateral Source and Specialized Damage Interrogatories, Set Two

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

BACKGROUND

On November 8, 2017, plaintiff Joshua Kent filed a complaint against defendants David D. Wu, M.D., a professional medical corp. and David D. Wu, M.D. for medical malpractice.

On February 14, 2018, plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney. Plaintiff is representing himself.

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.

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.

DISCUSSION

Defendants request that the court compel plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to defendants’ Collateral Source and Specialized Damage Interrogatories, Set Two, which were served on February 20, 2018. Responses were due by March 27, 2018. To date, defense counsel has not received responses.

Because defendants properly served their discovery requests and plaintiff 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 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).

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 $1,390. The court finds that $345 ($190/hr. x 1.5 hrs. plus $60 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded against plaintiff.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff Joshua Kent is ordered to serve on defendants verified responses without objections to defendant’s Collateral Source and Specialized Damage Interrogatories, Set Two, within 20 days.

The court orders plaintiff Joshua Kent to pay to defendants a monetary sanction in the amount of $345 within 30 days.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 6, 2018

____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court