Case Number: BS174990 Hearing Date: November 27, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

RESPONDING PARTY: None

Motion to Compel Defendants’ Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One

The court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

On September 10, 2018, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a petition to enforce discovery in an uninsured motorist bodily injury matter.

LEGAL STANDARD

Interrogatories

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. CCP §2030.290(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.

Request for Production of Documents

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP §2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. CCP §2031.300. Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 8:1487

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff State Farm requests that the court compel Defendants to serve responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents, set one, which both were served by mail on October 13, 2017. Responses to both discovery requests were due on November 17, 2017. Defendants failed to serve responses. To date, Plaintiff’s counsel has not received responses.

Because Plaintiff properly served interrogatories and requests for production of documents and Defendants failed to respond, the motion is 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 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.

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.”

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendants in the amount of $1,310. The court finds that $460 ($200/hr. x 2 hrs. plus $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded against Defendants.

The court ORDERS:

Defendants Dietra Walker, Daryl Parker, and Carrie Rose are ordered to serve on Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days. CCP § 2030.290.

Defendants Dietra Walker, Daryl Parker, and Carrie Rose are ordered to serve on Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company verified written responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and to produce all documents and things in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control which are responsive to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, within 20 days. CCP § 2031.300.

Defendants Dietra Walker, Daryl Parker, and Carrie Rose are ordered to pay a monetary sanction to Plaintiff in the amount of $460 for all two motions within 30 days.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 27, 2018

_____________________________

Christopher Lui

Judge of the Superior Court