Case Number: BC685938 Hearing Date: January 07, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY; GRANTED

On December 6, 2017, Plaintiff Daniel Ortiz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Christina Hernandez (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle and general negligence relating to a July 12, 2017 automobile collision. Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to written discovery requests and monetary sanctions.

On January 23, 2018, Defendant served Set One of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production on Plaintiff. (Declaration of David M. Hillier, ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s counsel requested two extensions, but ultimately provided no responses because Plaintiff was not cooperating. (Hillier Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) On June 4, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel. On July 3, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel served a notice of ruling on Plaintiff. Defense counsel states that to date Plaintiff has not provided any responses and has not requested any further extension.

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.)

Notice of these Motions was properly served on Plaintiff as a self-represented party. Plaintiff filed no opposition to the Motions and did not serve timely responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. Accordingly, the Motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses are GRANTED and Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Set One of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

When a court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The record does not show that defense counsel met and conferred with Plaintiff regarding the outstanding discovery responses or that Plaintiff was otherwise aware of the outstanding discovery up to and at the time his counsel was relieved. However, according to the proofs of service, Defendant served Plaintiff with the Motions by mail at Plaintiff’s address on November 28, 2018. At that time at the latest, Plaintiff was aware of the outstanding discovery but did not take steps to respond to the discovery or Motions. The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $705.00 (one hour per motion plus filing fees).

The Court encourages defense counsel to send copies of the outstanding discovery requests with the notice of this ruling.

Moving party to give notice.