Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV47267, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV47267 Hearing Date: September 8, 2022 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
September 8, 2022
21STCV47267
Motion to Compel Responses from Defendant Federico Barone to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and for Monetary Sanctions filed by Plaintiff Efrain Garcia
DECISION
The motion is denied as moot.
Sanctions in the amount of $560 are imposed against Defendant Barone and his counsel. Sanctions are payable within 20 days after the date of this order.
Moving party is to provide notice.
Background
This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in March 2021. Plaintiff Efrain Garcia filed his Complaint against Defendant Jason Skweres on December 28, 2021.
On March 9, 2022, Plaintiff added Federico Barone as a defendant in this action.
On July 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed his motion to compel Defendant Federico Barone’s initial responses to FROGs.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Plaintiff propounded written discovery on Barone on March 30, 2022. At the time this motion was filed, Plaintiff had not received any response from Barone, nor has he received any communications about the discovery responses.
Opposing Arguments
Defendants Barone and Skweres served responses without objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests between August 22-27, 2022. Barone and Skweres argue Plaintiff’s request for sanctions are excessive.
Legal Standard
Compelling Responses to Interrogatories
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.
Sanctions
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).)
Discussion
Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to FROGs.
Here, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied because Barone and Skweres responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests before the hearing date of the motion on this matter.
With respect to sanctions, the Court finds that Barone has misused the discovery process by failing to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery request timely. Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant Barone and his counsel of record in the amount of $1,560 based upon three hours of time at an hourly rate of $500 and a $60 filing fee.
Defendant argues that the late responses are late through no fault of their own because their defense counsel changed twice. Nevertheless, Defendants’ discovery responses were served four months after the original due dates in April 2022 and Defendant Barone made no attempt to contact Plaintiff regarding an extension. Under these circumstances, The Court finds that Defendant Barone’s failure to serve timely responses constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. The Court awards Plaintiff’s requested sanctions but in the amount of $560 (1 hour of time at $500 per hour plus $60 filing fee) which is what is appropriate for a simple motion written by experienced counsel.
