Case Number: BC618325 Hearing Date: March 07, 2018 Dept: 98

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY; MOTION GRANTED

On April 26, 2016, Plaintiff Dennis Garrels (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”) and Richard Felix (“Felix”) for dangerous condition of public property and motor vehicle negligence relating to a December 4, 2015 automobile versus pedestrian collision. On June 14, 2016, City served Form Interrogatories, Set One and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Sireen Sawaf, ¶ 2.) On February 9, 2017, City served Special Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff. (Sawaf Decl., ¶¶ 2, 3.) To date, City has not received any responses from Plaintiff to its discovery requests. City now seeks an order compelling Plaintiff’s responses and imposing 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.)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to these Motions and it is undisputed that Plaintiff has not served timely responses to City’s discovery requests. Accordingly, the Motions to compel are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to City’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

City also seek monetary sanctions. “The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to [discovery], 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.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Monetary sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $300.00 for 1.5 hours spent preparing these unopposed motions at counsel’s rate of $200.00 per hour.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.