Case Number: BC628688 Hearing Date: March 07, 2018 Dept: 98

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

On July 28, 2016, Plaintiff Kayla Jimenez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants David Gonzalez (“Defendant”) and Jorge Galvan for motor vehicle negligence relating to a September 7, 2014 automobile collision. On December 5, 2017, Defendant served Special Interrogatories, Set Two and Demand for Documents, Set Two on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Michael S. Mars, ¶ 2; Exh. A.) To date, Plaintiff has not served responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. Defendant now moves for 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 who 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 Defendant’s discovery requests. Accordingly, the Motions to compel are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two and Demand for Production of Documents, Set Two, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Defendant also seeks 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 $450.00, for one hour preparing these unopposed Motions and one hour attending the hearing, at counsel’s rate of $165.00 per hour, plus $120.00 filing fees, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.