Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

December 29, 2022

19STCV36773

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Next Trucking Inc.’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set Five) and Request for Sanctions 

The motion is granted. 

Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within 25 days after the date of this order.

Sanctions in the amount of $780 are awarded jointly and severally against Defendant and Defendant’s Attorney of Record. Sanctions are due within 25 days after the date of this order.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order. 

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in January 2018. Plaintiff Annette Belair filed her Complaint against Defendants IDC Logistics, Inc., Next Trucking, Inc., and Miguel Francisco Galvez on October 11, 2019.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant Next Trucking, Inc. (“Next Trucking”) to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set Five (“RPDs”).

Plaintiff originally propounded the fifth set of RPDs on Next Trucking on May 26, 2022. To date, Next Trucking has not responded.

Next Trucking argues that Plaintiff’s motion is moot because it will serve responses prior to the date of the hearing on this motion. Next Trucking also filed its opposition late because the attorney responsible for the case went on emergency leave and inadvertently failed to calendar this motion.

None filed.

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) 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. 

A court may not award monetary sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. §§2023.010 and 2023.030 standing alone or read together. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 500.) 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c)).) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to deem requests for admissions admitted if a party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed failed to serve a timely response to the request for admission. (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280(c).) 

Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to her fifth set of RPDs from Defendant Next Trucking. 

Here, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Next Trucking’s responses to RPDs. Plaintiff’s request is supported by a declaration counsel. Plaintiff propounded written discovery on Next Trucking on May 26, 2022. (Jackson Decl., ¶2.) On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel granted Next Trucking’s request for an extension to July 12, 2022. (Id., ¶4; Exh. B.) On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Next Trucking that the responses were late and requested responses without objections. (Id.) To date, Next Trucking has not served responses. (Id., ¶5.)

Because Next Trucking has served no response to Plaintiff’s RPDs, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Although Next Trucking argues that it will have served responses by the date of the hearing on this motion, there is no evidence that responses were actually served.

Discovery sanctions may not be imposed under Section 2023.030, even together with Section 2023.010, absent another provision of the Discovery Act that authorizes the imposition of sanctions. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 500.) Sanctions for with respect to the interrogatories and the request for production are only authorized against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses unless a court finds that the party acted with substantial justification. (See Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c)).

Here, the request for sanctions is granted because Next Trucking unsuccessfully opposed this motion. Next Trucking does not dispute that the responses are late. There are no facts showing Next Trucking opposed this motion with substantial justification.

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,340 based on six hours of attorney time at $360 per hour plus $180 filing fee. Here, no reply was filed and the motion was a simple one. The Court awards sanctions in the amount of $780 (2 hours of attorney time plus $60 filing fee).