Case Number: BC616026 Hearing Date: March 07, 2018 Dept: 98

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS; MOTION GRANTED

On April 6, 2016, Plaintiff Abhi Prabha Nair (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Michael Keith Parks (“Defendant”) for negligence relating to an October 15, 2015 automobile collision. On July 17, 2017, Defendant served Supplemental Request for Production and Supplemental Interrogatories on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Andrew K. Stefatos, ¶ 2; Exhs. A, B.) Although Defendant granted an extension on responses, Plaintiff served no responses to the supplemental discovery requests. (Stefatos Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4.) Defendant now seeks an order compelling Plaintiff’s responses and imposing monetary sanctions.

A party may propound a supplemental interrogatory or supplemental demand for production of documents to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made by any party. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.070, subd. (a), 2031.050, subd. (a).) Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code of 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 of 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.)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to this Motion and it is undisputed Plaintiff failed to serve responses to Defendant’s supplemental discovery requests. Accordingly, the Motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Supplemental Request for Production and Supplemental Interrogatories within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions and filing fees in the sum of $750.00. Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions are mandatory, unless the court finds the party subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or the sanctions would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) The monetary sanction of $750.00 is imposed against Plaintiff and counsel, jointly and severally, and must be paid to Defendant’s counsel within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.