Case Number: BC682874 Hearing Date: January 15, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motions to Compel Responses to Judicial Council Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One)

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

The court notes that two identical motions to compel defendant’s first set of form interrogatories were filed, and the motion to compel responses to defendant’s special interrogatories was not filed.

On November 13, 2017, plaintiff Buchra Azzam (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint against defendant Brian Jin Sahng-Yoon (“defendant”) for negligence and negligence per se based on an accident that occurred on October 21, 2015.

Defendant requests that the court compel plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to defendant’s first sets of form interrogatories and demand for production of documents and things served on April 9, 2018. Responses were due by May 14, 2018. On August 14, 2018, defendant sent plaintiff a letter regarding responses, and requesting responses without objection by August 21, 2018. On August 29, 2018, defendant sent an email to plaintiff requesting discovery responses. Defendant contend that as of the filing of the motion, defense counsel has not received responses.

Plaintiff has not opposed.

The court finds that defendant properly served discovery requests and plaintiff failed to respond.

The Motions to Compel Responses to Judicial Council Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) are therefore GRANTED. The Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is taken OFF-CALENDAR as nothing was filed.

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’s request was properly noticed against plaintiff’s attorney and plaintiff as required under CCP §2023.040.

Defendant requests sanctions against plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney of record in the amount of $1,180.00 for each motion. The court finds that sanctions are warranted pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c). Defense counsel made several reasonable attempts to obtain plaintiff’s discovery responses before having to file a motion to compel. The responses were not served as of the date of the instant motions. Plaintiff has not opposed. There is no basis for a finding that plaintiff acted with substantial justification, and it would not be unjust to award sanctions against a party whose failure to serve discovery responses necessitates motion practice. The court finds that $600 ($160/hr. x 3 hrs., plus $120 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney of record.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff Buchra Azzam is ordered (1) to serve on defendant Brian Jin Sahng-Yoon verified responses without objections to defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days, (2) to serve on defendant Brian Jin Sahng-Yoon verified responses without objections to defendant’s Request for Production of Documents and Things, Set One, and (3) to produce all documents and things in plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to defendant’s request, within 20 days.

Plaintiff Buchra Azzam and plaintiff’s attorney of record are ordered to pay to defendant Brian Jin Sahng-Yoon $600 in monetary sanctions within 30 days.

The Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is taken OFF-CALENDAR as nothing was filed.
Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.