Case Number: BC610779 Hearing Date: January 16, 2018 Dept: 93

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Long Beach Unified School District

RESPONDING PARTY: None

Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to its Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

On February 18, 2016, plaintiff Jose Carbajal, as guardian ad litem for minor Dana Carbajal, filed a complaint against defendants Long Beach Unified School District, California Department of Education, and City of Long Beach for premises liability and negligence based on an incident that occurred on June 11, 2015.

On September 11, 2017, Long Beach U.S.D. filed an answer.

Trial was continued to September 24, 2018.

LEGAL STANDARD

Interrogatories

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. 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.

Request for Production of Documents

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP §2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. CCP §2031.300. Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. 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. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 8:1487.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Long Beach U.S.D. requests that the court compel plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to its first set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents, served on September 11, 2017. Responses were due by October 16, 2017. On November 28, 2017, defense counsel sent plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter regarding the overdue responses, requesting responses within ten days. To date, defense counsel has not received responses.

Because defendant properly served discovery requests and plaintiff failed to serve verified responses, the motion is GRANTED.

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).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Defendant requests sanctions against plaintiff and the attorney of record, in the amount of $760. The court finds that $410 ($175/hr. x 2 hrs. Plus $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded against plaintiff and attorney of record.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff Jose Carbajal, as guardian ad litem for minor Dana Carbajal, is ordered to serve on defendant verified responses without objections to defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One), within 20 days.

Plaintiff is ordered (1) to serve on defendant a verified response without objections to defendant’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One), and (2) to produce all documents and things in plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to defendant’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One), within 20 days.

The court orders plaintiff and attorney of record, Sergei N. Gladkov, Esq., to pay to defendant a monetary sanction in the amount of $410 within 30 days.

Moving defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 16, 2018

____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court