Judge Jill Feeney, Case 20STCV26495 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendant Shayan Davatgarzadeh

Sanctions in the total amount of $652 are imposed jointly and severally on Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. Sanctions are due within 20 days after the date of this order.

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on July 30, 2018. On July 14, 2020, Plaintiff Jonathan Pineda filed his complaint against Shayan Davatgarzadeh, Martha Martinez, and Does 1 through 50. On March 9, 2022, Plaintiff identified Farnaz Eghbali as a Doe defendant, and on July 18, 2022, the Court dismissed Martha Martinez without prejudice. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered severe injuries because of defendants’ negligence.

Defendant states that she propounded discovery requests on Plaintiff on March 14, 2022. On April 15, 2022, Defendant granted Plaintiff’s request for a two-week extension—leaving a due date of May 2, 2022. After attempting to meet and confer on May 4, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motions to compel. Defendant also requests sanctions in the amount of $572 per motion against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel.

Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.260, subd. (a).)

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. (Code Civ. Proc section 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that needs 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.)

A party waives its objections to a discovery request when it does not serve a timely response to the request. (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.290(a)) Even if objections do not need to be verified, objections will be waived if the responding party “fails to file any response within the statutory time period.” Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 658.

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, the party cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for filing a motion to compel initial responses.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Here, Defendant is entitled to orders compelling Plaintiff’s responses to FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs. The declaration of Defendant’s Counsel establishes the following: Defendant propounded discovery requests on March 14, 2022. (Hurley FROG Decl., ¶2; Hurley SROG Decl., ¶2; Hurley RPD Decl., ¶2; Exhibit A.) On April 15, 2022, Defendant granted Plaintiff’s request for a two-week extension to respond. (Id., ¶3; Exhibit B.) However, despite Defendant’s attempt to meet and confer on May 4, 2022, Plaintiff has still made no attempt to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests. (Id., ¶¶ 4,6.) Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to compel responses are granted.

Defendant requests attorney’s fees in the amount of $572 for filing fees and 4 hours of attorney time at a rate of $133 per hour for each motion. Because these motions are repetitive, simple, and unopposed the Court imposes sanctions in the total amount of $652 (4 hours of attorney time (including appearance at the hearing) and the $120 in motion fees requested).