Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV22578 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production, and Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendant Ravi Nangia

It appears that Defendant paid two motion fees instead of three as required. If this is correct, Defendant is ordered to pay the third motion fee in advance of the hearing.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to Defendant’s (1) Form Interrogatories (Set One); (2) Special Interrogatories (Set One); and (3) Requests for Production (Set One) within 20 days after the date of this order.

The Court imposes sanctions totaling $1,180 jointly and severally against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. Sanctions are payable within 20 days after the date of this order.

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

On June 16, 2021, Plaintiff Anthony Garcia filed his complaint against Ravi Nangia and Does 1 through 50. Plaintiff alleges that he sustained permanent bodily injuries as a result of the crash.

On August 9, 2022 Defendant Ravi Naga filed his motions to compel responses FROGs, SROGs, RPDs, and for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record.

Defendant states that he propounded discovery requests on Plaintiff on September 1, 2021 with a due date of October 6, 2021. Defendant then granted an extension to January 21, 2022. After meet and confer attempts failed, Defendant filed the instant motions to compel. Defendant also requests sanctions.

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, 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.

Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

Here, Defendant is entitled to orders compelling Plaintiff’s responses to FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs. Defendant’s request is supported by a declaration from his counsel. Defendant propounded discovery requests on September 1, 2021 with a due date of October 6, 2021. (Côté Decl., ¶2, Exhibit A.) When no response was submitted, Defendant sent correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Id., ¶3.) Defendant granted Plaintiff an extension to January 22, 2022. (Id.) Receiving no response, Defendant filed the instant motions. (Id., ¶4.) Accordingly, Defendant’s motions are granted.

The Court finds that sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff has engaged in a misuse of the discovery process. For all three motions, the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record in the amount of $1,180 (5 hours of time at $200 per hour plus $180 in filing fees).