Case Number: BC672165 Hearing Date: November 28, 2018 Dept: 7

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY; MOTION DENIED

On August 14, 2017, Plaintiffs Constantin Dontov and Elena Dontova (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Scott Beeks (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle and general negligence relating to a September 22, 2016 automobile accident. On January 8, 2018, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents on each Plaintiff. (Declaration of David E. Ramirez, ¶ 3; Exh. A.) Plaintiffs served no responses and defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter on July 9, 2018 requesting responses within ten (10) days. (Ramirez Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant moves to compel Plaintiffs’ responses and monetary sanctions.

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.)

Plaintiffs argue Defendant did not serve the discovery requests at the correct address. The proof of service shows discovery requests were mailed to “1654 Wilshire Boulevard” but Plaintiffs’ counsel’s correct address is “1644 Wilshire Boulevard.” Plaintiffs’ counsel states that although the 1654 Wilshire Boulevard address was previously the correct address, the 1644 Wilshire Boulevard address has been the correct address since January 2018. Plaintiffs argue counsel’s address on the State Bar website shows his current office address as 1644 Wilshire Boulevard. Plaintiffs argue Defendant did not sufficiently meet and confer before filing these Motions and delayed in contacting Plaintiffs regarding the outstanding discovery. Plaintiffs’ counsel argues defense counsel should have emailed or called Plaintiffs’ counsel to inquire about the outstanding discovery.

When moving to compel responses to discovery where no responses have been served, there is no meet and confer requirement. Although it may be true that Defendant served discovery requests on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s old office, Plaintiffs’ counsel never filed a Notice of Change of Address with the Court. Accordingly, the official address for Plaintiffs’ counsel was the address listed on Plaintiffs’ Complaint, which was 1654 Wilshire Boulevard. Defendant reasonably relied on this address in serving discovery and sending the meet and confer letter to this address. It was incumbent upon Plaintiffs’ counsel to ensure there was updated contact information on record in this action, and Defendant was not obligated to check counsel’s State Bar profile to verify the address. It also does not appear that Plaintiffs’ counsel, after receiving these Motions, attempted to contact defense counsel to resolve the issue or clarify the mistake.

The Motions to compel responses are DENIED because Plaintiffs did not receive the discovery requests. However, the request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed on Plaintiffs’ counsel only, in the reduced amount of $560.00 for one hour at defense counsel’s hourly rate and the $360.00 filing fees incurred by filing these Motions, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order for failing to keep the Court and parties apprised of counsel’s current address, necessitating these Motions.

Moving party to give notice.