Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 20STCV37302, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV37302    Hearing Date: September 30, 2022    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Motions to Compel: (1) Bill Starkov’s Responses to Form Interrogatories; (2) Bill Starkov’s Responses to Requests for Production; (3) Jessica Starkov’s Responses to Form Interrogatories; and (4) Jessica Starkov’s Responses to Requests for Production

Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club moves to compel plaintiffs Bill Starkov and Jessica Starkov to serve responses to form interrogatories and requests for production. 

Order Compelling Responses

When a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories or demands for inspection, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(b) [interrogatories]; 2031.300(b) [demands for inspection].)  Failure to timely respond waives any objections.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(a); 2031.300(a).)

Defendant served the four sets of discovery requests at issue on December 29, 2021.  (Smith Decls., ¶ 5.)  After multiple extensions, defendant ultimately gave plaintiffs until August 26, 2022, to serve responses.  (Id., ¶ 9, Ex. D.)  Plaintiffs had not served responses as of August 29, 2022, shortly before defendant filed these four motions.  (Id., ¶ 10.)  Defendant is therefore entitled to an order compelling plaintiffs to serve responses to these discovery requests.

Sanctions

In each of its four motions, defendant moves for $390 in sanctions against plaintiffs.  Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process subject to monetary sanctions.  (CCP § 2023.010(d).) 

Plaintiffs Bill Starkov and Jessica Starkov did not respond to defendant’s authorized methods of discovery.  The court finds plaintiffs did not act with substantial justification and sanctions are just under the circumstances.  Plaintiffs have a duty to respond to discovery requests.  Defendant gave them over six months of extensions.  The court finds defendant reasonably incurred $390 in expenses on each of its four motions.

Disposition

Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s motion to compel plaintiff Bill Starkov to respond to form interrogatories, set one, is granted.  Plaintiff Bill Starkov is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, set one, without objections within 20 days.  Plaintiff Bill Starkov is ordered to pay defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club $390 in sanctions within 20 days.

Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff Bill Starkov to respond to requests for production, set one, is granted.  Plaintiff Bill Starkov is ordered to serve verified responses to requests for production, set one, without objections within 20 days.  Plaintiff Bill Starkov is ordered to pay defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club $390 in sanctions within 20 days.

Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff Jessica Starkov to respond to form interrogatories, set one, is granted.  Plaintiff Jessica Starkov is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, set one, without objections within 20 days.  Plaintiff Jessica Starkov is ordered to pay defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club $390 in sanctions within 20 days.

Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff Jessica Starkov to respond to requests for production, set one, is granted.  Plaintiff Jessica Starkov is ordered to serve verified responses to requests for production, set one, without objections within 20 days.  Plaintiff Jessica Starkov is ordered to pay defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club $390 in sanctions within 20 days.