Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Rebecca Herman of Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz & Dolin who is being sanctioned by the court.

Case Number: BC623531 Hearing Date: April 17, 2018 Dept: 3

MARGARITA MANCILLA,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

JOSEF SCHREIBER, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC623531

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND MOTION TO DEEM RFAS ADMITTED

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

April 17, 2018

1. Motions to Compel Discovery Responses and Deem RFAs Admitted

Defendants propounded special interrogatories, form interrogatories, RFAs, and RPDs on Plaintiff on 11/14/17. Defendants granted two extensions of time to respond, but insisted responses must be without objections, which were waived due to failure to timely respond; on 2/08/18, Plaintiff served responses, which consisted entirely of objections are were not verified. At this time, Defendants move to compel responses to the discovery at issue and move to deem the RFAs admitted.

The initial question before the Court is whether these motions were properly filed as motions to compel initial, as opposed to further, responses. On the one hand, objections were waived, and the responses at issue consisted entirely of objections. On the other hand, there are responses to the discovery, and what Defendants really want are “further” responses, without the boilerplate objections. Notably, the fact that the responses at issue were not verified is not relevant, as responses consisting entirely of objections need not be verified. See Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 339, 344-345.

The Court is inclined to find that the motions were properly filed as motions to compel initial responses. CCP §2030.290, which governs interrogatories, indicates that it applies if a party fails to serve a “timely response” to interrogatories propounded. Defendants sufficiently established failure to serve a timely response. §2030.290(b) permits the party who propounded the interrogatories to move for an order compelling responses to the interrogatories. Per §2030.290(a), that response must be without objections. §2031.300, governing RPDs, contains substantially similar language. The motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs is therefore granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, within ten days.

CCP §2033.280, which governs RFAs, requires the Court to deem RFAs admitted if the responding party fails to timely respond, and fails to serve responses in substantial compliance with the Code prior to the hearing. Plaintiff failed to timely respond, and therefore waived her right to object. §2033.280(a). Consequently her responses, which consist entirely of objections, are not in substantial compliance with the Code. The motion to deem the RFAs admitted is therefore granted.

2. Motion to Compel Deposition

Defendants served a Notice of Deposition on Plaintiff on 11/14/17, setting the deposition for 1/10/18. At Plaintiff’s request, the parties agreed to continue the deposition to 2/15/18. However, on 2/14/18, Plaintiff unilaterally canceled the deposition without providing an alternative date or giving a reason for cancellation.

Defendants move to compel Plaintiff’s deposition. The motion is granted. CCP §2025.450(a) requires the Court to grant a motion to compel deposition unless the deponent has served a “valid” objection to the notice of deposition. In light of the lack of objection and lack of opposition to the motion, the motion is granted.

Plaintiff’s Counsel and Defense Counsel are ordered to meet and confer within five days to schedule a time and date for Plaintiff’s deposition. If Plaintiff’s attorney does not meaningfully participate in the process, or if Counsel are unable to agree, Defense Counsel may set the deposition on Defense Counsel’s terms with five days’ notice to Plaintiff’s Counsel (notice extended per Code if by other than personal service).

The Court notes that the notice of deposition includes a demand for production of documents. The moving papers fail to show good cause for production of the documents sought, as required by §2025.450(b)(1). The Court therefore declines to enter an order compelling Plaintiff to produce documents, but urges the parties to work together to resolve any issues concerning documents without court intervention.

3. Evidence/Issue Sanctions

Defendants seek evidentiary and/or issue sanctions in connection with the discovery motions on calendar today. Pursuant to Do it Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & Berns (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 27, 35-36, sanctions more harsh than monetary sanctions can only be imposed if the moving party shows that any order short of such harsh sanctions would be “futile.” Defendants have not made that showing here, and the request for harsher sanctions is denied.

4. Monetary Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory. §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c), 2025.450(g)(1). Defendants seek sanctions in varying amounts in connection with each motion. The Court awards the requested three hours to meet and confer concerning the discovery at issue, but only awards the time once. The Court awards one hour per motion to prepare the five motions. No opposition was filed and therefore no reply was necessary. The Court awards three hours of appearance time, but again only awards the time once. The Court awards a total of eleven hours of attorney time at the requested rate of $180/hour, or $1980 in attorneys’ fees. The Court also awards five filing fees of $60 each, plus one $20 parking fee, or $320 in costs.

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, jointly and severally; they are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendants, by and through their attorney of record, in the total amount of $2300, within twenty days. Defendants are ordered to give notice.