Case Number: BC705251 Hearing Date: April 26, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request or Production of Documents (Set One)

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

BACKGROUND

On May 7, 2018, plaintiff Karen Yeates (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against defendants South Lake Avenue Investors LLC and South Lake Avenue, LLC alleging negligence and premises liability for a trip-and-fall that occurred on March 17, 2018.

Trial is set for November 7, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant South Lake Avenue Investors, LLC (“Moving Defendant”) requests this court for an order compelling Plaintiff to respond to Moving Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One).

Moving Defendant also requests this court for an order compelling Plaintiff to pay Moving Defendant’s counsel a total of $3,720.00 in monetary sanctions for bringing both of these motions, consisting of $1,860.00 for bringing each motion.

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. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031. 300, subd. (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.)

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (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.”

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), requires that motions and supporting documents be filed at least sixteen court days before the hearing.¿ California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), requires that a motion be served five additional days before the hearing if service is made by mail within California and the recipient’s address is within California.¿

DISCUSSION

Notices of Errata

The court finds that the two notices of errata regarding Meena C. Nachiappan’s declarations pertaining to both the motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Both Set One) are untimely. Both of these notices were filed and served by U.S. mail on April 11, 2019. This left only eleven court days between the filing and service of these notices and the hearings on the motions that the notices support. As such, these notices are untimely and the court does not consider them.

Motions to Compel

On August 8, 2018, Moving Defendant propounded Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Both Set One) to Plaintiff. (Both of Meena C. Nachiappan’s Declarations (“Nachiappan Decl.”), ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Moving Defendant agreed to extend Plaintiff’s deadline to provide responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) on five separate occasions. (Nachiappan Decl., ¶¶ 4-6, 9, 13, Exh. B-D, E.) Plaintiff’s ultimate deadline to provide responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Both Set One) was January 28, 2019. (Nachiappan Decl., ¶ 14, Exh. F.) Moving Defendant did not receive Plaintiff’s responses as of time Meena C. Nachiappan signed the operative declarations on February 20, 2019. (Nachiappan Decl., ¶ 16.)

Moving Defendant’s motions are GRANTED.

Moving Defendant request sanctions against Plaintiff in the total amount of $3,720.00, consisting of $1,860.00 for bringing each motion. (Motions, pp. 3-4.) Moving Defendant failed to declare how this total is calculated in the declarations attached to the motions. As indicated above, the court does not consider the notices of errata that: (1) stated that Moving Defendant omitted this calculation and (2) provided this calculation. Nevertheless, the court finds monetary sanctions in the amount of $120.00 as reasonable to be imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record for the two filing fees Moving Defendant incurred in bringing these motions.

The court orders Plaintiff to serve a verified response, without objections, to Moving Defendants Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Both Set One) within 30 days of this order.

The court also orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record to pay Moving Defendant $120.00 within 30 days of this order.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.