Case Number: BC712036 Hearing Date: January 03, 2019 Dept: 4A

MOVING PARTY: Defendant El Pollo Loco, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: None

Motion 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.

On June 28, 2018, Plaintiff Hazel Pacheco filed a Complaint against Defendant El Pollo Loco, Inc. (“Defendant”) for negligence and premises liability based on a slip and fall that occurred on June 29, 2016.

Defendant requests that the Court compel Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant’s first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for identification and production of documents and things, served on August 15, 2018. Responses were due by October 26, 2018 after multiple extensions were granted. Despite attempts to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff’s overdue responses, Plaintiff has still not responded to the discovery requests. Defendant contends 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 motion is therefore GRANTED.

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 and Plaintiff’s attorney as required under CCP §2023.040.

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,295.00 for the 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 motion. 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 $845 ($190/hr. x 3.5 hrs., plus $180 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against Plaintiff.

The Court notes that moving party paid only one filing fee and improperly combined three motions into one.

The Court ORDERS:

Defendant El Pollo Loco, Inc. is ordered to pay additional filing fees in the amount of $120 within five days.

Plaintiff Hazel Pacheco is ordered (1) to serve on Defendant verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days, (2) to serve on Defendant verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days, (3) to serve on Defendant verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and (4) to produce all documents and things in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to Defendant’s request, within 20 days.

Plaintiff Hazel Pacheco and her counsel of record Goldstein, Gubruz & Robertson are ordered to pay to Defendant $845 in monetary sanctions within 30 days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.