Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV22695 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

-Motion to Compel Responses by Plaintiff to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions filed by Defendant MTA

Sanctions are imposed jointly and severally against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record in the amount of $975. Sanctions are due within 30 days after the date of this order.

This action arises from a workplace injury which took place in July 2020. Plaintiff Michael Rivera filed his Complaint against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (“MTA”) on June 17, 2021. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on March 3, 2022.

MTA propounded written discovery requests, including FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs on March 7, 2022 with responses due April 8, 2022. To date, MTA has not received responses to its requests.

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).) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and 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), 2033.280(c).)

Here, MTA is entitled to orders compelling Plaintiff’s responses to FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs. MTA’s claims are supported by its counsel’s declaration. Plaintiff’s discovery responses were originally due on April 8, 2022. (Lofton Decl., ¶6.) Although counsel reached out to Plaintiff regarding the requests, MTA has not received any responses to its discovery requests. Because Plaintiff has not served responses to date, MTA’s motion is granted.

With respect to sanctions, the Court finds that Plaintiff misused the discovery process by failing to respond to MTA’s discovery requests. MTA requests sanctions for seven hours of attorney time for both motions at an hourly rate of $325 and supports the request with declarations from Counsel. (Lofton Decl., ¶¶9-11.) However, because the motions are substantially similar and unopposed, the figure is adjusted to $975 for 3 hours of attorney time for both motions.