Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV23065, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23065    Hearing Date: December 20, 2022    Dept: 68

Hansen Champlin, et al. vs. Ace Animal Hospital, et al., Case No.:  22STCV23065

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories – General (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One); and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Hansen Champlin and Elizabeth Mary Alvarado (Plaintiffs)

Responding Party:       Defendant Anyes Van Volkenburgh, DVM (Defendant)

BACKGROUND

The complaint in this case was filed on July 25, 2022. Plaintiffs asserted multiple causes of action arising out of an alleged incident in which Plaintiffs’ dog died while in Defendants’ care. Plaintiff filed this discovery motion against Defendant Volkenburgh (Defendant) on October 18, 2022.

MOVING PARTIES’ POSITION

The moving parties request an order on the motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. Plaintiffs seek an order (1) compelling responses to the discovery sets, and (2) awarding Plaintiffs monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,300.00 against Defendant. Plaintiffs propounded the discovery sets upon Defendant on September 6, 2022. The responses were due on October 10, 2022. Defendant did not and has not responded to the requests. As a result, Plaintiff filed this motion.

OPPOSITION

Defendant filed her opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion on December 7, 2022. In the motion, Defendant indicated that it is her intent to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Defendant alleges in her opposition that it was Defendant’s former counsel, attorney Andrew Altholz, who was responsible for the lack of response to the discovery requests. Mr. Altholz was disbarred by the State Bar on October 6, 2022 (prior to the discovery deadline). (Gomez Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. A.) Defendant’s new counsel was just retained in the last few weeks.  (Gomez Decl., ¶ 6.) Defendant’s new counsel also indicates that they will respond to the outstanding discovery requests prior to the hearing on the motion to compel, and they will be filing a motion to remove Mr. Altholz as Defendant’s counsel of record. (Gomez Decl., ¶¶ 7 and 8.) Defendant also requests that, given the circumstances, no sanctions be imposed.

REPLY

Plaintiffs filed their reply on December 13, 2022. In their reply, Plaintiffs stated that they had not yet received the promised discovery responses from Defendant. Plaintiffs also reaffirmed their request for sanctions from Defendant. They asked that the Court require Defendant to serve her responses within 10 days of the hearing on this matter.

ANALYSIS

I.          Motion to Compel

A verified response to the types of discovery requests at issue here must be served within 30 days of service of the interrogatories. (CCP §§ 2030.250(a) and 2030.260(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories and production demands were directed fails to serve a response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. (CCP §§ 2030.290 and 2031.300.)

Here, Defendant has yet to serve responses to the discovery requests. Defendant is required to serve responses.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel.  Responses shall be served within 10 days of service of notice of this Order.

II.        Sanctions

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories, as well as for a monetary sanction under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 et seq. (CCP § 2030.290(b) and (c).) Misuses of the discovery process include failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery. (CCP § 2023.010(d).) Sanctions may be imposed against a party or his attorney, or both. (CCP § 2023.030.)

Defendant’s responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests were due a couple months ago. However, there were extenuating circumstances at the time, due to Defendant’s previous attorney being disbarred, that prevented Defendant from timely serving her responses. As such, the Court declines to award any sanctions at this time.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions against Defendant is DENIED.