MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

 

Motion Filed: 8/14/24

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Zankou Chicken Granada, Inc. (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Manuel Bejar (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK

 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified, objection-free responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Form Interrogatories – General, and Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set One, within 7 days. Defendant also seeks $4,700.00 in monetary sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiff and his counsel.

 

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to the subject discovery requests within 30 days. The Court imposes $700.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or his counsel.

 

BACKGROUND

 

This is an employment action brought by Plaintiff, who alleges that he was employed by Defendant “from April 18, 2002, until he was wrongfully denied a reasonable accommodation for his disability when he was released from medical treatment by Dr. Frederic Nicola with permanent restrictions limiting BEJAR from lifting over 30 pounds and no repetitive use of the right upper extremity over shoulder greater than 30 pounds and not allowed to return to work on June 2, 2021.” (Compl. ¶ 3.)

 

On 3/11/24, Plaintiff filed his complaint, alleging against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Disability Discrimination; (2) Failure to Prevent Discrimination; (3) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation; and (4) Failure to Engage in Interactive Process. On 4/11/24, Defendant filed its answer.

 

On 4/15/24, Defendant served the subject initial discovery requests on Plaintiff. (Decl. of Erin Cazares M. Sanzo ¶ 2.) On 8/14/24, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses thereto. No opposition has been filed to date. On 11/25/24, Defendant filed a notice of Plaintiff’s non-opposition.

 

ANALYSIS

 

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to interrogatories if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2030.260, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

 

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to a request for production of documents if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300, subd. (b); 2031.260, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

 

Here, as Defendant served the subject discovery requests by mail and electronic service on Plaintiff on 4/15/24, the last day for Plaintiff to respond was 5/20/24. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1013, subd. (a).) To date, Plaintiff has not provided responses to the subject discovery requests. (Sanzo Decl. ¶ 7.) As such, Plaintiff has waived any objections thereto.

 

The Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to oppose the instant motion. Accordingly, the Court grants the instant unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff’s verified, objection-free responses to the subject discovery requests.

 

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a [discovery] response … 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 Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).)

 

Here, Defendant seeks to impose $4,700.00 in monetary sanction against Plaintiff and/or his counsel, encompassing: (1) 15 hours of Defendant’s attorney’s time spent preparing the instant motion; (2) an anticipated 3 hours reviewing Plaintiff’s opposition and preparing for the instant hearing; and (3) an anticipated 2 hours traveling to and attending the instant hearing, at counsel’s hourly billing rate of $235.00. (Sanzo Decl. ¶ 8.)

 

In granting the instant unopposed motion, the Court finds it reasonable to impose $700.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or is counsel.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to the subject discovery requests within 30 days. The Court imposes $700.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or his counsel.