Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV01492, Date: 2023-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01492    Hearing Date: December 18, 2023    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:  Motion of Defendant and Cross-Complainant, DECRON PROPERTIES CORPORATION to Compel Plaintiffs’ Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions in The Amount of $1,460.00.

Tentative: 

The unopposed motion is granted.

On or before 1/8/24, plaintiffs ALI MAADARANI and KELLY MAADARANI shall serve initial responses, without objections, and in full compliance with the California Discovery Act, CCP §2016.010 et seq., as to the special interrogatories served by Defendant and Cross-Complainant DECRON PROPERTIES CORPORATION.

The Court previously ordered sanctions of $1,000.00 against both Plaintiffs for an absence of substantial justification with regards to the motions to compel responses to form interrogatories and document requests. The Court finds that that sanctions amount is sufficient to cover all of the discovery motions against Plaintiffs. The Court therefore exercises its discretion to deny the separate request for sanctions for this motion to compel.

Reasoning:

Defendant DECRON PROPERTIES CORPORATION filed a motion to compel responses to the first set of special interrogatories propounded to each of the Plaintiffs, and also requested sanctions. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need only show that discovery was properly served on the opposing party, the time to respond expired, and no response was served.  Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06; CCP § 2030.290. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement.  Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 404.

The motion establishes that Defendant properly served Plaintiffs with the special interrogatories and Plaintiffs never responded. Nor did Plaintiffs file any opposition to this motion. The Court therefore grants the motion but denies the request for further sanctions given that it has previously sanctioned Plaintiffs in connection with the other discovery motions filed by Defendant and finds that sanctions amount sufficient to cover all the discovery motions.