Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 22-01256425, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

(1) Motion to Compel Answers to Form Irogs (2) Motion to Compel Production (3) Motion to Compel Answers to Form Irogs (4) CMC

Tentative Ruling:  Plaintiffs John and Linda Wilkie filed three discovery motions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories, Set One from Defendant Rebecca Webb, ROA 45; (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production, Set One from Defendant Rebecca Webb, ROA 41; and (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories, Set One from Defendant Jason Webb, ROA 37.  Plaintiffs also request $2,655 in attorney’s fees for each of the three motions.

Defendants Rebecca Webb and Jason Webb did not oppose the Motions.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, a party who fails to serve timely responses to interrogatories or requests for production waives any objection to the requests.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a) and 2031.300, subd. (a).)  The party propounding the interrogatories or requests for production may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b) and 2031.300, subd. (b).) 

“Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45–day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’ requirement.”  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

Monetary sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for production, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) and 2031.300, subd. (c).) 

On July 14, 2022, Plaintiffs served the discovery sets at issue.  Defense counsel requested numerous extensions to respond to the discovery and Plaintiffs agreed to each extension with a final due date of October 19, 2022.  As of the filing of these Motion, neither Defendant has not provided responses to the discovery at issue.

Accordingly, the unopposed Motions to Compel (1) Defendant Rebecca Webb’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Defendant Rebecca Webb’s Responses to Requests for Production, Set One; and (3) Defendant Jason Webb’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One are GRANTED.  Defendants shall serve verified responses without objections within 30 days of the notice of ruling.