Case Number: BC673909 Hearing Date: March 15, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

On August 25, 2017, Plaintiff Kimberly Baltazar Atencio (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for personal injuries sustained in an August 29, 2015 propane tank explosion resulting in severe burns to Plaintiff’s lower legs, arms, and face. Plaintiff moves to compel discovery responses and monetary sanctions from Defendant Young Cho, LLC (“Defendant”).

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

On October 25, 2018, Plaintiff served Set One of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production on Defendant. (Declaration of William M. Crosby, ¶ 2.) On November 28, 2018, defense counsel requested a two week extension on responses, which was granted. (Crosby Decl., ¶ 3.) On December 20, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to defense counsel seeking responses, without objection, within seven days. Defense counsel responded that same day asking for another two week extension. Plaintiff’s counsel granted the final extension until January 10, 2019. (Crosby Decl., ¶ 4.) On January 11, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel advising that motions to compel and requests for sanctions were forthcoming unless discovery responses were immediately received. (Crosby Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff received no responses and moves to compel Defendant’s discovery responses and monetary sanctions.

On March 4, 2019, Defendant provided verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Declaration of Albert Chang, ¶ 5.) Defense counsel contends Defendant was unfairly sued and is an uninsured small business who must pay litigation costs and attorney’s fees out of pocket. Therefore, Defendant requests the court reduce the amount of monetary sanctions imposed. (Chang Decl., ¶ 6.)

The Motions to compel are denied as MOOT.

However, the court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even where the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).) Despite being granted three extensions on responses, Defendant did not provide discovery responses until March 4, 2019 after Plaintiff filed her motions to compel and nearly three months after they were due.

The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Defendant and defense counsel, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $1,180.00 for two hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate and $180.00 in filing fees, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.