Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Paul Kingston who is being sanctioned by the judge.

Case Number: 17K07514 Hearing Date: May 08, 2018 Dept: 94

Defendants Certified Tire & Service Centers, Inc., Jeffrey Darrow, and Paula Darrow’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; Responses to Special Interrogatories; and Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Defendants are awarded $860.00 in monetary sanctions.

Legal Standard

If verified responses to interrogatories or requests for production of documents (“RFP”) are not provided, propounding party may move for an order compelling initial responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).) The moving party need not attempt to meet-and-confer with the nonresponsive party; nor must they demonstrate “good cause” for production of documents. These motions may be brought at any time. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consults. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

Discussion

Discovery Requests

Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff Nannette Meldrum to serve verified responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One).

On September 1, 2017, Defendants served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One). (Snyder Decl. ¶1; Exh. A.) On December 6, 2017 and February 23, 2018, Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a letter requesting that verified responses to discovery be provided. (Id. at ¶4; Exh. B.) To date, Defendants have not received Plaintiff’s verified responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One). (Id. at ¶5.)

In review of the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants’ properly propounded discovery requests; and have failed to proffer substantial justification in failing to provide timely responses.

As such, Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff Nannette Meldrum is ordered to provide verified responses within 10 days of the hearing on this Motion.

Monetary Sanctions

Defendants request monetary sanctions in the sum of $1,260.00.

The imposition of sanction is warranted where a party has misused the discovery process, which is defined as “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (CCP §2023.010.) Further, CCP §2023.030 states that sanctions should not be awarded is “the one subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.”

Defendants’ counsel seeks expenses related to the value or reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for one hour in the preparation of each Motion; as well as two hours of anticipated time to appear at the hearing on each Motion at a rate of $400.00 per hour plus $60.00 in filing fees. (Synder Decl. ¶6.)

The Court finds that moving Defendants are entitled to sanctions pursuant CCP §2023.030. However, the Court also finds that Defendants’ request for sanctions is excessive. Therefore, Defendants are awarded $860.00 (two hours total for motion preparation and appearance at $400 plus $60.00 filing fee.)

Plaintiff and their attorney(s) of record are ordered to pay the sum of $460.00 within 30 days of the hearing on this Motion.