Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Victor Block of the Block Law Group who is involved in the sanctions orders from the court.

Case Number: BC654944 Hearing Date: March 12, 2018 Dept: 53

tasha donahue vs. ford motor company ; BC654944, March 12, 2018

[Tentative] Order RE: DEFENDANT’S (1) MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,260.00; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,260.00; (3) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,260.00

Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY’s Motion for Order Establishing Admissions and for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,260.00; Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,260.00; and Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,260.00 are GRANTED. However, the award for sanctions shall be a total of $1,380.00 for all three motions.

BACKGROUND

On November 7, 2017, Defendant Ford Motor Company (“FMC”) served Plaintiff Tasha Donahue (“Plaintiff”) with Requests for Admission (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One). (Hughes Decls., ¶ 2.) FMC did not receive responses to any of the written discovery requests by the statutory deadline. (Hughes Decls., ¶ 3.) On January 2, 2018, counsel for FMC sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff requesting responses by January 9, 2018. (Hughes Decls., ¶ 4.) To date, FMC has not received a response to either the written discovery or the meet and confer letter. (Hughes Decls.,¶ 5.)

FMC now moves to compel responses by Plaintiff to the written discovery and seeks monetary sanctions as well. No opposition to the motions was filed.

DISCUSSION

A party that fails to serve a timely response to the discovery request waives any objection to the request, including one based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The propounding party may move the court for orders compelling responses to interrogatories and demands for inspection. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.) Furthermore, if a party to whom requests for admission have been directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2033.280.)

If a propounding party moves for and obtains a court order compelling a response, the court shall impose monetary sanctions against the party failing to timely respond to interrogatories and demands for inspection unless that party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to timely serve responses to the Requests for Admission (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One). The Court further finds that there is no substantial justification for Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the written discovery and therefore awards sanctions in the amount of $1,380.00 to FMC. Since there was no opposition and no need for reply, the Court finds that FMC’s counsel’s entitlement to reasonable attorney’s fees would be calculated as follows: $200 x 2 hours per motion x 3 motions + ($60 filing fee x 3) = $1,380.00.

CONCLUSION

The matters specified in the Requests for Admission (Set One) are deemed admitted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to the Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) within 20 days of this Order. Plaintiff is further ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,380.00 to FMC within 30 days of this Order.

FMC is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: March 12, 2018

_____________________________

Hon. Howard L. Halm

Judge of the Superior Court