Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Lawrence vs. Chang, Date: 2023-06-12 Tentative Ruling
A) Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Stephanie Chang’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel plaintiff/cross-defendant Robert D. Lawrence’s (“Plaintiff”) initial responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, is MOOT in part and GRANTED in part.
The motion is proper to compel the initial responses to the two sets of Form Interrogatories, Set Two. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.290.) As no responses were served, Plaintiff waived any objections, including those based on privilege and attorney work product protects. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.290(a).) It appears that after filing the motion, Plaintiff served verified responses on 06/05/23. (ROA #151 at ¶ 5.) Those responses would make the motion to compel initial responses MOOT.
Despite the motion being moot as to compelling the responses, the court can still consider the issue of the requested monetary sanctions. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 409.) The court GRANTS the request for monetary sanctions in a lowered amount of $1,131.00 against both Plaintiff and his attorneys of record for failing to timely serve the initial responses and requiring Defendant to file the present motion in order to obtain the responses. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), and 2023.030(a).) The reduction comes from the lack of any opposition or reply brief being filed.
B) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SPROG”), is MOOT in part and GRANTED in part.
Pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2030.300, the motion is proper to compel further responses to the SPROG. However, it appears that after filing the motion, Plaintiff served verified responses on 06/05/23. (ROA #151 at ¶ 5.) Those responses would make the motion to compel further responses MOOT.
Despite the motion being moot as to compelling the responses, the court can still consider the issue of the requested monetary sanctions. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 409.) The court GRANTS the request for monetary sanctions in a lowered amount of $598.50against both Plaintiff and his attorneys of record for failing to timely serve the further responses as ordered by the court, which required Defendant to file the present motion. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2030.300(d), 2023.010(d), and 2023.030(a).) The reduction comes from the lack of any opposition or reply brief being filed, the appearance time being granted in the FROG motion above, and that Plaintiff has apparently paid the prior pending monetary sanctions (ROA #151 at ¶¶ 2-3.)
C) Motion for Sanctions
Defendant Stephanie Chang’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED without prejudice in part.
Sanctions are warranted when there are “[m]isuses of the discovery process,” such as “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” or “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (C.C.P. §§ 2023.010; 2023.030.)
C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(c) [re interrogatories] and 2031.300(c) [re request for production] provide that if a party fails to obey an order compelling discovery responses, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction, and/or monetary sanctions. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)
Defendant requests terminating sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, issues sanctions, and/or monetary sanctions against plaintiff Robert D. Lawrence (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff’s counsel recently filed a declaration attesting to serving verified responses to all outstanding written discovery requests and to paying all outstanding monetary sanctions. Defendant did not file any response to the declaration indicating anything to the contrary. As Plaintiff has now apparently complied with the outstanding discovery issues, the court cannot issue terminating sanctions as a punishment. (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at 992.) The issue and evidentiary sanctions would also appear to be improper at this time as Plaintiff has responded to all requests. The court does note that Plaintiff has abused the discovery process several times prior to this and hereby issues a final warning to Plaintiff and his counsel to comply with the discovery process moving forward or the court will issue more strict sanctions. The court denies the request for terminative, evidentiary, and issue sanctions at this time without prejudice. If Plaintiff continues in his prior course of discovery abuses, the court will permit Defendant to file a renewed motion and more hefty sanctions will be imposed.
Defendant also requested monetary sanctions on this motion. Given no substantive opposition was filed and no reply brief was filed, the requested amount is lowered to:
$315/hr. x 15.2 hrs. + $60 fee = $4,848.
All monetary sanctions are due within 20-days of notice of the ruling.
Defendant to give notice.