Case Number: BC624091 Hearing Date: June 01, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Jasmin Gonzalez

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Genitta Johnson

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

On June 17, 2016, plaintiffs Shirley Simpson and Genitta Johnson filed a complaint against defendant Jasmin Gonzalez for motor vehicle negligence based on an incident that occurred on April 16, 2015.

LEGAL STANDARD

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.

DISCUSSION

Defendant requests that the court compel plaintiff Genitta Johnson to serve verified responses without objections to defendant’s first set of form interrogatories, served on January 17, 2018. Responses were due by February 21, 2018. On February 21, 2018, defense counsel granted plaintiff’s request for an extension to March 23, 2018. On March 20, 2018, plaintiff requested an additional extension, to April 5, 2018. By April 16, 2018, when defense counsel had not received responses, defense counsel attempted to contact plaintiff’s counsel to inquire as to the outstanding responses. On April 27, 2018, defense counsel received a voice mail message that responses were forthcoming. As of the filing date of the motion, defense counsel had not received responses.

In opposition, plaintiff contends that she has been sick and that she was admitted to the hospital in late April for congestive heart failure, and that she is currently on general bed rest at home.

Because defendant properly served discovery requests and plaintiff failed to serve verified responses, the motion is 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 attorney of record, Thris Van Taylor, a Law Corporation, in the amount of $1,020. The court finds that $380 ($160/hr. x 2 hrs. plus $60 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded against plaintiff.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff Genitta Johnson is ordered to serve on defendant verified responses without objections to defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days.

The court orders plaintiff Genitta Johnson to pay to defendant a monetary sanction in the amount of $380 within 30 days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 1, 2018

____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court