Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23SMCV00266, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00266    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff Von Fersen Properties LLC (“Plaintiff”) brings this unlawful detainer action against Onizuka LA LLC (“Defendant”) concerning a commercial property located at 514 North La Cienega Boulevard in West Hollywood, California. Plaintiff now brings this motion to compel Defendant to respond to written discovery propounded by Plaintiff on February 24, 2023.

Legal Standard

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. (C.C.P. § 2030.290(b). The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that needs 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.)

Where there has been no timely response to a request for production under Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.010, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (C.C.P. § 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.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents 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.” (C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)

California 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.” Under Code Civ. Proc. § 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.” Section 2023.010(d) defines misuses of the discovery process to include “Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

Analysis

Plaintiff has propounded written discovery on Defendant consisting of Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents. Defendant failed to timely respond to this discovery as required by Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.260(a) and 2031.030(c)(2). Plaintiff subsequently granted Defendant an extension to March 16, 2023, to provide responses to this written discovery. Defendant failed to provide responses by March 16, and to date has not responded to Plaintiff’s interrogatories or requests for production. (Sanders Decl. at ¶¶2-6.) Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to this written discovery is GRANTED.

Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,380. The Court in its discretion finds the requested monetary sanction to be excessive in light of the relatively simplicity of the instant motion. The Court will instead impose a monetary sanction of $1,000 against Defendant pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a).

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and produce all documents responsive to Plaintiffs requests for production within 5 days of the date of this order. The Court also imposes a monetary sanction of $1,000 against Defendant, to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 5 days of the date of this order.