Case Number: 16K11942 Hearing Date: May 21, 2018 Dept: 94

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.’s motions to compel Defendant Tirbucio Luna Cadena to respond to discovery are GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide full responses, without objections, within twenty days. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $870.

Legal Standard

Interrogatories

Where there has been no timely response to interrogatories served under CCP § 2030.010, 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.)

The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the interrogatories, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (CCP § 2030.290(a)(1)-(2).)

Unlike a motion to compel “further” responses, a motion to compel responses contains no meet and confer requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 765-66.)

Request for Production of Things

Where there has been no timely response to a demand made under CCP § 2031.010, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. CCP § 2031.300. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses, nor is there any requirement that the moving party meet and confer before filing the motion. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 765-66.)

The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (CCP § 2031.300(a)(1)-(2).)

Discussion

Plaintiff propounded discovery on Defendant on January 6, 2017. (Feuerman Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff has sent two meet and confer letters seeking responses. (Feuerman Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. B.)

On April 04, 2018, having still not received responses, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

The Court agrees Defendant has disobeyed the discovery statutes by failing to respond, and that Plaintiff’s motions are proper. Plaintiff’s motions are therefore GRANTED.

Sanctions

Plaintiff requests $560 in sanctions for each motion, representing 2 hours of work on each motion at a rate of $250.00 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee for each, for a total of $1,120.

Pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(c), “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.”

Lacking any showing from Defendant as to whether there was substantial justification to not provide responses, the Court concludes sanctions are mandatory. However, Defendant’s requested sanctions are excessive. Accordingly, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $870, representing three hours of work and two $60 filing fees.