Case Number: BC634271 Hearing Date: October 19, 2018 Dept: 4

(1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One

(2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

On October 27, 2016, plaintiff Sergio Alvarez filed a complaint against defendants Romero Motors Corp., Aquirecorpo’s Norwalk Auto Auction, Norwalk Auto Auction, Romero Motors Mazda and Hyundai, and Richard Romero for premises liability and negligence based on an incident that occurred on October 28, 2014, in which defendants’ employee struck plaintiff in the head with a metal bar that the employee was using to unload a vehicle from a tow truck.

Trial is set for April 29, 2019.

LEGAL STANDARD

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.

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 requests that the court compel plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, served on April 13, 2018. Responses were due by May 18, 2018. Defendant granted plaintiff extensions, to June 21, 2018, and then to July 5, 2018. On July 19, 2018, defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter to plaintiff’s counsel, requesting responses by July 29, 2018. To date, defense counsel has not received responses.

Because defendant properly served its discovery requests and plaintiff failed to serve verified responses, the motions are 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 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).

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 in the amount of $2120 for both motions. The court finds that $440 ($160/hr. x 2 hrs. plus $120 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded against plaintiff.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff Sergio Alvarez is ordered to serve on defendant Aquirecorp’s Norwalk Auto Auction verified responses without objections to defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, within 20 days.

Plaintiff Sergio Alvarez is ordered (1) to serve on defendant a verified response without objections to defendant’s Demand 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 demand, within 20 days.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay monetary sanctions to defendant in the amount of $440 within 30 days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 19, 2018

____________________________

Christopher K. Lui

Judge of the Superior Court