Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 22STCV13442, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV13442 Hearing Date: October 13, 2022 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
October 13, 2022
22STCV13442
Motion to Compel Defendant Edward Hightower’s Responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories filed by Plaintiff Melisha Wright and Request for Sanctions
DECISION
If Plaintiff has not already paid two motion fees, Plaintiff is ordered to do so prior to the hearing on this matter.
Defendant Hightower is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set Two) within 30 days after the date of this order.
Sanctions in the amount of $920 are imposed jointly and severally on Defendant and Defendant’s Counsel of Record. These sanctions are due within 20 days after the date of this order.
Moving party is to provide notice and must file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.
Background
This is an action for motor vehicle negligence arising from a car accident which took place in June 2021. Plaintiff Melisha Wright filed her Complaint against Edward Hightower and Ynomee Magee on April 22, 2022.
On August 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed motions to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and Compel Responses to Requests for Production and Inspection of Documents, Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, and Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories against Edward Hightower.
On October 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-receipt of opposition to her motions to compel discovery responses and requested the Court consolidate her motions to October 31, 2022.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Plaintiff originally propounded FROGs, SROGs, RFPs, and RFAs on Defendant Hightower on July 21, 2022. Responses were originally due on August 23, 2022. To date, Plaintiff has not received any responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Plaintiff also requests sanctions.
Opposing Arguments
None.
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 moves to compel Hightower’s responses to SROGs and FROGs.
Plaintiff is entitled to orders compelling Hightower’s responses to FROGs and SROGs. Plaintiff supports her claims with a declaration from Counsel. Plaintiff propounded discovery requests on Hightower on July 21, 2022. (Vafa Decl., ¶2.) After receiving no response, Counsel emailed Hightower’s counsel on August 24, 2022 to request responses and unilaterally grant an extension to Friday of that week. (Id., ¶4.) Hightower to date has not served any discovery responses. Because Hightower has not provided responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and not filed an opposition to this motion, the motion is granted.
With respect to sanctions, the Court finds that Hightower has misused the discovery process by failing to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $3,000 against Defendant and Defendant’s Counsel of Record.
Because the motion is simple and unopposed, the Court imposes sanctions totaling: $820 (one hour of attorney time at $550 per hour plus 1.5 hours of staff time at $150 per hour plus $120 filing fees).
