Case Number: BC666922 Hearing Date: February 08, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One), Supplemental Interrogatories (Set Two), Request for Production of Documents (Set Three), and Supplemental Request for Production of Documents (Set One)

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

On July 24, 2017, plaintiff Tunsiia Cobbins (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint against defendants Sky Zone, LLC and Sky Zone Indoor Trampoline Park 90248, LLC (collectively “defendants”) for general negligence and premises liability based on an incident that occurred on July 25, 2017.

Defendants requests that the court compel plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to defendant’s first set of special interrogatories, supplemental interrogatories, supplemental request for production of documents, and third set of requests for production of documents, served on November 19, 2018 and November 20, 2018. Responses were due by December 24, 2018 and December 25, 2018. Plaintiff failed to respond and never requested an extension. As of filing the instant motion, defense counsel had not received responses.

In opposition, plaintiff states the responses have since been provided. The responses were not provided earlier due to a calendaring error and a firm-wide restructuring and updating of calendaring, staffing, and practice management software. Plaintiff’s counsel argues this constitutes substantial justification, thus the court should deny sanctions.

The motions are MOOT, as the responses have been provided.

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).)

The court finds that plaintiff acted with substantial justification and the imposition of sanctions would be unjust because it appears that the responses were not provided due to issues with plaintiff’s counsel’s office. Thus, sanctions are warranted only against plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c). Although plaintiff’s counsel’s office was undergoing changes, the court does not find this a substantial justification for not responding to discovery. Further, it would not be unjust to award sanctions against a party whose failure to serve discovery responses necessitates motion practice. The Court finds that $1,240.00 ($250/hr. x 4 hrs., plus $240 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against plaintiff’s counsel of record.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff’s counsel of record is ordered to pay defendants $1,240.00 within 30 days of this order.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.