Judge Jill Feeney, Case 22STCV19299 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Lap K. Yeung is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories within 35 days after the date of this order.

This is an action for negligence arising from an incident where a motorized wheelchair struck a pedestrian at a Costco wholesale store. Plaintiff Shin Min filed a Complaint against Defendants Lap K. Yeung and Leung Yeung on June 13, 2022.

Plaintiff propounded written discovery including FROGs on Defendant on July 11, 2022. To date, Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s request for discovery.

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 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, Plaintiff is entitled to orders compelling Defendant’s responses to FROGs. Plaintiff’s request is supported by a declaration from counsel. Plaintiff propounded discovery requests on July 11, 2022. (Yarris Decl., ¶3.) To date, Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s FROGs. (Id.)

With respect to sanctions, the Court finds that Defendant has misused the discovery process by failing to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $600 plus the motion filing fee and supports the request with a declaration from counsel. However, because the motion is unopposed, the figure is adjusted to $300 for two hours of attorney time at a rate of $150 per hour plus the $60 motion fee, for a total of $360.