Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 20TRCV00010, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20TRCV00010    Hearing Date: March 23, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         March 23, 2023 (continued from March 14, 2023)

Moving Parties:                      Defendant / Cross-Complainant Kamnuan Thongmanee

Responding Party:                  None

(1)   Motion to Compel Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories

(2)   Motion to Compel Responses to First Set of Inspection Demands

The court considered the moving papers.  No opposition was filed.

RULING

            The motions are GRANTED.

Plaintiffs Shawn Ellis, John Ellis, Genevieve Ellis, Wendy Spadaro, Staci Haussner, and Robert Dobson are ordered to serve on defendant Kamnuan Thongmanee verified responses without objections to defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, within five days.

Plaintiffs are ordered (1) to serve on defendant a verified response without objections to defendant’s Inspection Demand, Set One, and (2) to produce all documents and things in plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to defendant’s demand, within 10 days.

The court orders each plaintiff to pay to defendant $220 in sanctions for both motions, within 30 days.

BACKGROUND

            On January 6, 2020, plaintiffs Shawn Ellis, John Ellis, Genevieve Ellis, Wendy Spadaro, Staci Haussner, and Robert Dobson filed a complaint against defendants Kamnuan Thongmanee and Arporn Thongmanee for fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs allege they rented space, conducted business, or stored personal belongings at a rental property located at 2414 Artesia Blvd., Redondo Beach, CA 90278.  Plaintiffs allege defendants locked them out of the premises on July 17, 2019 and thereafter prevented plaintiffs from retrieving their personal property left inside.  Plaintiffs allege their personal property was worth approximately $250,000, and by refusing to allow them access to retrieve it, defendants converted it to their own use.

            On February 20, 2020, defendants cross-complained against Shawn Ellis and Does 1 through 25 for breach of contract and indemnity.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

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

Similarly, where there has been no timely response to a CCP §2031.010 demand, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  CCP §2031.300. Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Where a party fails entirely to respond to discovery, the propounding 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.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant Kamnuan Thongmanee requests that the court compel plaintiffs Shawn Ellis, John Ellis, Genevieve Ellis, Wendy Spadaro, Staci Haussner, and Robert Dobson to serve responses to defendant’s special interrogatories, set one and inspection demands, set one.

            Defendant contends that on December 7, 2022, he served identical sets of special interrogatories and inspection demands on all plaintiffs, for a total of twelve sets of discovery. Defense counsel emailed plaintiffs’ counsel on January 6, 2023 requesting responses and notifying him of defendant’s intent to move to compel if no responses were received.  As of the filing date of the motions, defense counsel had not received responses.

            The court finds that defendant properly served discovery and plaintiffs failed to respond.  There is no opposition.

            The motions are thus GRANTED.

Sanctions

Under CCP § 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.”  Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

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.”  CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).

Cal. 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.”

Defendant requests attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $1,250 ($208.33 against each plaintiff) as to the motion re special interrogatories and $2,142.50 ($357.08 against each plaintiff) as to the motion re inspection demands.  The court finds that $1,320 ($400/hr. x 3 hrs., $120 filing fee) is a reasonable amount to be awarded in favor of defendant, in total for both motions, to be split by plaintiffs ($220 against each plaintiff).

Defendant is ordered to give notice of ruling.