Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Ronald Goldszer of Silverman and Goldszer who is being sanctioned by the judge.

Case Number: BC635241 Hearing Date: May 04, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendant City of Culver City

RESPONDING PARTY: None

(1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One

(2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

On September 23, 2016, plaintiff Kathy Mackey filed a complaint against defendant City of Culver City for premises liability based on a trip and fall on a sidewalk on July 11, 2015.

Trial is set for August 23, 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 City of Culver City requests that the court compel plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to defendant’s first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents, served on November 17, 2017. Responses were due by December 29, 2017. Defense counsel gave a ten-day extension to January 8, 2018. On January 3, 2018, plaintiff’s counsel requested a 30-day extension, which defense counsel granted. Responses were due by February 2, 2018. No responses were served.

On February 13, 2018, defense counsel granted a two-week extension, and then another extension to March 15, 2018. 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 her attorneys in the amount of $1776 for both motions. The court finds that $370 ($185/hr. x 2 hrs.) is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded against plaintiff and her attorney of record, Ronald I. Goldszer, Esq., in total for both motions.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff Kathy Mackey is ordered to serve on defendant City of Culver City 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 Request for 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 plaintiff and her attorney of record, Ronald I. Goldszer, Esq., to pay to defendant a monetary sanction in the amount of $430 within 30 days in total for both motions.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 4, 2018

____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court