Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV00628 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

The Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,475 jointly and severally against Plaintiff Uzan and Plaintiff Uzan’s Counsel of Record. The sanctions are due within 15 days after the date of this order.

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in August 2019. Plaintiffs Jason Craig Dessaint and Yadira Perez filed their Complaint against Defendants Fine Windows, Inc., Zvika Zvi Quizer, Ron Uzan, Tamar E. Norikian, Markark M. Sarkissian, Parvin Galdjebrnoun, and Morris Benoun on January 7, 2021.

This case was consolidated with 21STCV29548, in which Plaintiff Ron Uzan (“Plaintiff”) brought an action against Defendants Zvika Tuizer (“Tuizer”) and Fine Windows and Doors Replacement Inc. (“Fine Windows”) for negligence arising from the same motor vehicle accident.

On December 5, 2022, Defendants Fine Windows and Tuizer filed these instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to their Requests for Production (RFPs), Special Interrogatories (SPROGs), and Form Interrogatories (FROGs).

The Court notes that at the previous hearing on March 15, 2023 regarding the related motion to compel, the Court noted that the “oppositions and replies in connection to the above motions to compel and to motions to compel set for hearing on April 7, 2023 have been incorrectly filed under consolidated case 21STCV29548, the Court orders counsel to refile those documents under this lead case number (21STCV00628).” Defendants have complied with this order, but Plaintiff has not filed his oppositions in the lead case. The Court none the less considered the oppositions. In the future, the Court will not consider documents that are not filed under the correct case number.

If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production 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., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2031.300 subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories or requests for production was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; 2031.300.) Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for production 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, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Here, Defendants move to compel Plaintiff Uzan’s responses to RFPs, SPROGs, and FROGs, which were propounded on Plaintiff on February 2, 2022. (Ghaemmaghami Decl., ¶2, Exhibit A.) Responses were due March 8, 2022 and Uzan failed to serve responses. (Id., ¶3.) Counsel called Uzan’s counsel inquiring after the late responses and requested responses without objections by April 8, 2022. (Id., ¶4.) Uzan has failed to serve responses. (Id., ¶5.)

Plaintiff Uzan opposes the motions to compel, arguing that Defendants failed to meet and confer. However, no meet and confer is required when a party fails to serve any timely response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

Plaintiff concedes that Plaintiff failed to provide timely responses to the discovery requests. Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff’s counsel requested multiple extensions, but Defense counsel did not respond to these requests. However, these requests were made in March 2022 and Plaintiff admits that Defense counsel eventually sent an email granting an extension and requesting responses by April 8, 2022. (Lefkowitz Decl., ¶¶ 6-14.) Because over a year has passed, and Plaintiff has still failed to respond to these discovery requests, the motions to compel responses to their RFPs, SPROGs, and FROGs are granted.

Defendants request monetary sanctions in the amount of $822.50 for each discovery motion filed. This amount represents reasonable attorney’s fees of 3.5 hours at $235 per hour and filing fees of $60. As these discovery motions are largely duplicative of each other and the previously filed motion to compel, Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is granted in a reduced amount of $1,475 total for all five motions. This amount includes 5 hours of attorney time at $235 per hour, plus $300 in filing fees for the filing fees of the five motions.