Case Number: BC701178 Hearing Date: May 31, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT INGRID TERRELL’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

On April 3, 2018, Plaintiffs Nathaniel James and Laurie James (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Maimon Hadad, Gloria Maria Alvarez De Felice, Marcos David Felice, and Ingrid Terrell (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence arising out of an April 16, 2017 accident and January 23, 2018 accident. On August 24, 2018, Defendant served Set One of Special Interrogatories, Demand for Production, and Form Interrogatories on Nathaniel James and Set One of Form Interrogatories and Demand for Production on Laurie James. (Declaration of Greg Diarian, ¶ 8.) Defendant sent a meet and confer letter and received no response. (Diarian Decl., ¶ 9.) Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to discovery.

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.)

Plaintiffs filed no opposition to these Motions to compel and it is undisputed Plaintiffs served no responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. Accordingly, the Motions to compel are GRANTED and Plaintiffs are ordered to serve responses within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiffs and Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $1,300.00 for four hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $250.00 and $300.00 in filing fees, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.