Case Number: BC581870 Hearing Date: August 07, 2018 Dept: SEC

SHERMAN v. LAKEWOOD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.

CASE NO.: BC581870

HEARING: 08/07/18

JUDGE: LORI ANN FOURNIER

#1

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant TELECARE CORPORATION’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff JUSTIN SHERMAN’s responses to form interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED. CCP §2030.290.

Defendant TELECARE CORPORATION’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff CHASE SHERMAN’s responses to form interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED. CCP §2030.290.

Defendant TELECARE CORPORATION’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff JUSTIN SHERMIN’s responses to special interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED. CCP §2030.290.

Defendant TELECARE CORPORATION’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff CHASE SHERMAN’s responses to special interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED. CCP §2030.290.

Defendant TELECARE CORPORATION’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff JUSTIN SHERMAN’s responses and production to request for production of documents (set one) is GRANTED. CCP § 2031.300

Defendant TELECARE CORPORATION’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff CHASE SHERMAN’s responses and production to request for production of documents (set one) is GRANTED. CCP § 2031.300

Plaintiffs and their counsel(s) of record are ORDERED to pay Defendant TELECARE CORPOARTION and its counsel of record, sanctions in the total amount of $960.00 ($200/hr. x 3 hrs.) + ($360 costs) no later than 15 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Plaintiffs are ORDERED to provide verified responses and documents to Form Interrogatories (Set One); Special Interrogatories (Set One); and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) without objection no later than 15 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended pursuant to agreement of the parties.

Defendant TELECARE CORPORATION paid only three filing fees in connection with these motions. However, Defendant seeks six separate orders. A separate filing fee is required for each. (Gov. Code §70617(a)(4).) No later than August 7, 2018, Plaintiff is ORDERED to make payment of an addition $180.00 to the Court clerk in Dept. SE-C.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition filed as of August 6, 2018.

If a party to whom interrogatories and document demands are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The failure to timely respond also waives all objections.

Here, Defendant has shown that Form Interrogatories (set one), Special Interrogatories (set one), and Requests for Production of Documents (set one) were properly served on Plaintiffs JUSTIN SHERMAN and CHASE SHERMAN on October 13, 2017. The deadline to respond has expired, and no responses of any kind have been provided. Plaintiff filed these motions on January 16, 2018, approximately three months after service of the discovery. As of August 6, 2018, Plaintiffs have not filed Oppositions to Defendant’s motions. Therefore, the Motions to Compel are granted, and Plaintiffs are ordered to provide verified responses and documents without objection. If any objections are asserted, it will be tantamount to no response at all and will be deemed a violation of this Court’s order.

“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.” (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).) Plaintiffs do not oppose the instant motions to compel. As such, there is nothing to show that Plaintiffs acted with substantial justification and the Court knows of no other circumstances which would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Therefore, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is granted as set forth above.