Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 22STCV00216, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV00216 Hearing Date: October 18, 2022 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
October 18, 2022
22STCV00216
Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production and Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendant Alcibiades Flores, Jr
DECISION
All three motions are denied as moot.
The Court imposes sanctions in the amount of $1,500 against Plaintiff. Sanctions are due within 20 days after the date of this order.
Moving party to provide notice.
Background
This is an action for motor vehicle negligence arising from a vehicle collision that occurred in January 2020. Plaintiff Jerry Walker filed his Complaint against Alcibiades Flores Jr. on January 4, 2022.
Defendant filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs on June 21, 2022.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Defendant propounded discovery requests, set two, on Plaintiff on March 15, 2022. To date, Plaintiff has not served responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. Defendant also requests sanctions.
Opposing Arguments
Plaintiff does not oppose the motion on its merits, but requests that Defendant’s request for sanctions be limited. Plaintiff argues the delay in responding to the discovery requests was due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s serious health issues. Plaintiff also states that Defendant received his discovery responses on September 30, 2022.
Reply Arguments
Defendant argues that his request for sanctions should be granted because Plaintiff failed to contact Defendant for more than six months to inform Defendant’s counsel of the status of the responses.
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.
Compelling Response to Demand for Production of Documents
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
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
The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff served complete discovery responses on September 30, 2022. Therefore, these motions are moot.
With respect to sanctions, the Court finds that Plaintiff did abuse the discovery process by failing to serve timely responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. However, because the three motions are simple, substantially the same, and Plaintiff did not oppose the motions on the merits, the figure will be adjusted. The Court awards $1,500 total for six hours of attorney time at a rate of $250 per hour.
