2017-00210859-CU-PA

US Bank Trust vs. Jeremy P. Chhun Trustee

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories

Filed By: Kendrick, Danielle A.

Defendant Jeremey P. Chhun and Lina Chhun’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is granted.

In opposition, US Bank Trust states that response were served on March 1, 2018, which makes this motion moot. Not so. A motion is “made” when it is filed and served. (CCP § 1005.5.) Late served responses do not moot a pending discovery motion, and defendants are entitled to a court order. The motion to compel may be heard even if tardy responses are served after the motion is filed. Unless the propounding party

takes the motion off calendar, the court may determine whether the responses are legally sufficient and award sanctions for failure to respond on time. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.

However, sanctions are denied because the motion is not opposed. Sanctions are denied because the motion was not opposed. Although CRC 3.1348(a) purports to authorize sanctions if a motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery (CCP 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c)) authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the CRC must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v Firmaterr Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355. However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.

Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, to the Special Interrogatories, on or before March 30, 2018.