Case Number: BC689544 Hearing Date: August 30, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motions to Compel Form Interrogatories (Set One and Set Three)

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On January 10, 2018, Plaintiffs Chris Calderon and Ruben Cruz (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Erlinda De La Fuente alleging motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on November 18, 2017.

On October 29, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to the complaint to name Christine De La Cruz as Doe 6.

On August 5, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant Christine De La Fuente’s responses to Plaintiff Cruz’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290.

On August 6, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant Erlinda De La Fuente’s responses to Plaintiff Cruz’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290.

On August 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant Christine De La Fuente’s responses to Plaintiff Calderon’s Form Interrogatories (Set Three) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290.

On August 28, 2019, the Court advanced the second- and third-filed motions to be heard with the first on August 30, 2019.

Trial is set for December 4, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Plaintiffs request that the Court compel Defendant Christine De La Fuente to respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One) propounded by Plaintiff Cruz within 15 days of the hearing on this motion.

Plaintiffs also ask the Court to compel Defendant Erlinda De La Fuente to respond to Plaintiff Cruz’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 15 days of the hearing on this motion.

Plaintiffs further request that the Court compel Defendant Christine De La Fuente to respond to Plaintiff Calderon’s Form Interrogatories (Set Three) within 15 days of the hearing on this motion.

Finally, Plaintiffs request the Court to impose $2,220 in monetary sanctions against Defendant Christine De La Fuente and her counsel of record, and $1,110 in monetary sanctions against Defendant Erlinda De La Fuente and her counsel of record.

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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (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.)

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

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.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (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.”

DISCUSSION

The Court finds it in the interest of justice to address all three of Plaintiffs motions to compel filed in early August of 2019 on the same day. No timely opposition was filed to any of these motions and, thus, no reply is necessary. The Court advances the hearings on the motions currently set for September 3 and 4, 2019 to today and reschedules the hearings for August 30, 2019, to conserve the time and resources of the parties and the Court. In addition to the Court’s posted tentative, the Court’s staff gave telephonic notice of the advanced hearing dates.

On April 3, 2019, Plaintiff Cruz served Form Interrogatories (Set One) on Defendant Christine De La Fuente and Erlinda De La Fuente, and Plaintiff Calderon served Form Interrogatories (Set Three) on Defendant Christine De La Fuente. (All Three Declarations of Armen Kiramijyan (“Kiramijyan Decl.”), ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Plaintiffs granted an extension for Defendants to provide their outstanding responses by July 25, 2019. (Kiramijyan Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs had not received the outstanding responses as of the time Armen Kiramijyan signed his supporting declarations on August 7, 2019. (Kiramijyan Decl., ¶6.)

The Court finds it must grant the motions. Defendants have not opposed the motions. There is no indication that Defendants acted with substantial justification or that the imposition of monetary sanctions would be unjust.

Plaintiffs request $1,110 for each of the three motions. (Kiramijyan Decl., ¶ 7.) For each motion, 1 hour was spent in preparing the moving papers and 2 hours in preparing a reply and appearing at the hearing at a rate of $350 an hour, plus three $60 filing fees. (Ibid.) The requested amount of sanctions is unreasonable because these motions are nearly identical and no opposition or reply was filed. Rather, the Court finds $585 ($350/hr. x 1.5 hrs. plus one $60 filing fee) to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed for each of the three motions. Thus, $1,170 is to be imposed against Defendant Christine De La Fuente and her counsel of record and $585 is to be imposed against Defendant Erlinda De La Fuente and her counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process.

The motions are therefore GRANTED.

The Court orders Defendant Christine De La Fuente to serve verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories (Set One) propounded by Plaintiff Cruz within 30 days of this ruling.

The Court also orders Defendant Erlinda De La Fuente to serve verified responses without objections to Plaintiff Cruz’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 30 days of this ruling.

The Court further orders Defendant Christine De La Fuente to serve verified responses without objections to Plaintiff Calderon’s Form Interrogatories (Set Three) within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.

The Court additionally orders Defendant Christine De La Fuente and her counsel of record to pay Plaintiffs $1,170, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.

The Court similarly orders Defendant Erlinda De La Fuente and her counsel of record to pay Plaintiffs $585, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.