Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV00712, Date: 2024-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00712    Hearing Date: December 20, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

The operative first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed April 18, 2023, alleges a single cause of action for negligence arising from a car accident that occurred in Studio City on May 26, 2022. Plaintiff Camille Johnson (“Plaintiff”) names defendants Diana Hertz and her insurer, State Farm Insurance Company (together “Defendants”).

On November 5, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to compel responses to their Special Interrogatories (Set Two). Plaintiff filed no opposition, and Defendants no reply.

DISCUSSION                                                                                              

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 (a)-(b).)  

Defendants’ counsel’s undisputed declaration demonstrates Defendants propounded the subject interrogatories on Plaintiff on September 16, 2024, and Plaintiff did not serve responses before this motion was filed. (Stevens Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendants are entitled to the relief they seek.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under [section 2023.010 et seq.] against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel [initial responses] ... unless it 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) [interrogatories], 2031.300(c) [requests for production]; 2033.280(c) [requests for admission].)

Plaintiff, having filed no opposition, demonstrates no reason why sanctions should not be imposed. Defendants’ counsel requests a reasonable $750.00 in fees and costs. The amount is awarded in full.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion to compel responses to special interrogatories (set two) and request for sanctions is granted.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide full, Code-compliant responses, without objections, within thirty (30) days of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay $750.00 in sanctions to Defendants and/or their attorney of record within thirty (30) days.

Defendants shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: December 20, 2024                                     ___________________________

                                                                              John J. Kralik

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court