Case Number: BC712889 Hearing Date: October 31, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

On June 29, 2018, Plaintiff Suany Sanches Balhego (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant SPSM, Inc. dba America’s Best Value Inn-Thousand Oaks and Red Lion Hotels Corporation (“Defendant”) for premises liability arising from a trip and fall in a parking lot. On June 27, 2019, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One by mail. Responses were due on August 1, 2019. Counsel met and conferred regarding an extension. Defendant asked for an extension to October 18, 2019 due to a vacation. Plaintiff refused. Plaintiff filed these discovery motions on October 4, 2019 and seeks an order compelling written responses and monetary sanctions. On October 18, 2019, Defendant served verified responses.

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.)

Defendant opposes these motions and attaches proof that it served verified discovery responses on October 18, 2019. Accordingly, the motions to compel Defendant’s responses are MOOT.

The court may award sanctions in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even where the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).) Plaintiff should have granted a request for an extension of time to respond. However, Defendant did not show why it needed an additional 2.5 months to respond.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is excessive. Plaintiff’s counsel, a senior attorney, seeks sanctions at a rate of $1,250.00 per hour. These very simple four-page motions, which were largely boilerplate law and long quotes from the Code of Civil Procedure, did not require the attention of a senior attorney billing at that very high rate. A junior associate at a much lower billing rate should have drafted the motions. Further, nothing about this matter indicates it is anything other than a basic trip and fall case. That type of case does not support fees of $1,250.00 per hour. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $1,000.00 to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.