Lawzilla Additional Information: The motion was taken off calendar and no final order was made.

Case Number: 18/STCV06729 Hearing Date: August 22, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One)

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On November 30, 2018, Plaintiff Sophie Ling Alford (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Tyler James Liebe, Robert K. Liebe, and Sheri-Lyn Liebe (“Defendants”) alleging negligence for a vehicle collision that occurred on June 8, 2017.

On May 14, 2019, Defendants filed motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.

On August 15, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Defendants motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to written discovery to August 22, 2019 for Defendants to file a supplemental reply to Plaintiff’s late opposing declaration.

Trial is set for May 29, 2020.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS

Defendants request that the Court compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide timely responses.

Defendants also request that the Court impose monetary sanctions of $2,430 against Plaintiff for her abuse of the discovery process.

Plaintiff asks the Court to impose $1,200 against Defendants’ counsel to cover the time spent preparing an opposing declaration.

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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (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.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

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.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

On February 8, 2019, Defendant Tyler James Liebe served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) on Plaintiff by U.S. Mail. (All Three Declarations of Keith W. Moreton (“Moreton Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Plaintiff served the outstanding verified responses without objections on Defendant on April 17, 2019. (Bish Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. 1-3.) Almost 30 days later, these motions were served on Plaintiff. (Bish Decl., ¶ 8.)

The Court finds Defendants’ requests for the Court to compel responses are moot because the responses have been served. Further, the Court finds the imposition of sanctions would be unjust because the responses were served well before the filing of the instant motions. Thus, the filing of the instant motions was unnecessary and served no purpose whatsoever.

For the same reasons, the Court grants sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $500 to compensate her for two hours of time at $250 per hour unnecessarily expended on responding to these motions.

The motions are therefore DENIED.

Defendants request for sanctions is DENIED.

Defendants and their attorneys of record are ordered to pay Plaintiff $500 in sanctions within 30 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.