Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This is an action by Respondent Mitch Kalcheim to recover damages on injuries he allegedly sustained during a car accident.  Respondent is appearing in pro per.    

On January 23, 2023, Claimant Progressive Select Insurance Company served upon Respondent a first set of form interrogatories, document requests and special interrogatories (the “Discovery Requests”).  The Discovery Requests sought information concerning Respondent’s alleged injuries and damages.  Responses were due by February 24, 2023.  Respondent did not respond.     

On February 28, 2023, Claimant’s counsel sent a letter requesting that Respondent provide verified responses without objections by March 7, 2023.  To date, Respondent has not provided verified responses to the Discovery Requests.   

The Court held an informal discovery conference (“IDC”) on Respondent’s failure to respond to the Discovery Requests.  Respondent did not appear at the IDC.  Accordingly, the Court granted Claimant leave to file motions to compel.   

This hearing is on Claimant’s motions to compel responses to (1) form interrogatories (set one), (2) demand for production of documents (set one), and (3) special interrogatories (set one).  Claimant also seeks monetary sanctions, in the amount of $2,060 for each motion to compel.  No opposition was filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.   

DISCUSSION 

When a party fails to respond to a request for production or an interrogatory, the propounding party may move the court for an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).)  The party to whom the discovery was directed waives any objections, including one based on privilege or on the protection of work product.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a).)      

Here, the time for Respondent to respond to the Discovery Requests expired on February 24, 2023, and no response has been served at this time.  (Goldberg Decl. ¶ 6.)  As a result, the Court concludes Respondent waived all objections to the Discovery Requests, and orders Respondent to serve responses without objections by December 1, 2023.    

Claimant requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,060 for each motion to compel, totaling $6,180.  Under the Civil Discovery Act, the Court is entitled to impose monetary¿sanctions in the amount of “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of” the¿misuse of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030 (a).)  Misuse of discovery includes failing to timely respond to discovery requests.  Respondent has not opposed the request for sanctions.  The Court finds that sanctions are warranted here because Respondent failed to respond within the time required under the Code.   

In determining the appropriate amount of¿sanctions, the Court starts with the¿lodestar which is the reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the¿reasonable hours spent.¿(PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096; see also¿Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)   

Claimant’s counsel has been practicing for three years and charges an hourly rate of $400.  Though arguably on the mid-to-higher end of the hourly rate prevailing in the community for similar work based on the firm size and level of experience, the rates are not outside the range of reasonableness.  

However, the Court concludes the hours spent (five hours for each motion) is not reasonable.  The motions are substantially identical, and counsel is seeking three hours to prepare reply briefs when there is no opposition to the motions to compel.  The Court will award six hours for all three motions:  three hours for preparing the first motion, two hours for duplicating and revising the other two motions, and one hour to appear before the Court on the motions.  The Court accordingly grants the motion for sanctions in the total amount of $2,400.     

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Claimant’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories (set one), demand for production of documents (set one) and special interrogatories (set one).  Respondent is directed to provide responses, without objections, to these discovery requests by December 1, 2023.  The Court also awards monetary sanctions in the amount $2,400 in favor of Claimant and against Respondent.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  November 9, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court