Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 24STCV05667, Date: 2025-03-20 Tentative Ruling

This is a landlord-tenant dispute. On December 23, 2024, defendants Brittany R. Romero (erroneously sued as Brittney R. Romero), Jon D. Romero, and Emily A. Rivera (collectively, Defendants) filed these motions to compel plaintiff Natalie Serrano (Plaintiff) to provide verified, objection-free responses to Defendants’ First Set of Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents.[1] Defendants also requests sanctions against Plaintiff. Plaintiff is self-represented.

If a party to whom interrogatories or inspection demands were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses without objections.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2031.300, subd. (b).) ¿Failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a).)¿

A party moving to compel discovery responses under these statutory provisions is not required to meet and confer prior to filing the motion.¿ (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2031.300, subd. (b); see also Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411 [citing Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906 for the proposition that “meet and confer” requirement “did not apply when propounding party sought order compelling responses to interrogatories and sanctions for responding party’s failure to respond ‘within the statutorily permitted time’”].)¿¿¿¿

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)¿¿¿¿

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.¿¿¿

If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production demands, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Defendants served Plaintiff with the at-issue discovery on August 30, 2024. (See Gamboa Decls., ¶ 4.) Discovery responses were due by October 2, 2024. Plaintiff did not respond. (Id., ¶ 5.) Despite having no obligation to do so, Defendants attempted to meet and confer. To date, Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses or responded to Defendants’ meet and confer efforts. Accordingly, all objections to the discovery requests are waived.¿ Defendants are entitled to an order compelling responses to the interrogatories and production requests.¿ Plaintiff, having not filed an opposition, does not present any argument directing a different result.

Defendants request sanctions against Plaintiff.¿ Given that Plaintiff has not provided responses to discovery propounded over seven months ago, or even responded to Defendants’ attempt to meet and confer, the court finds sanctions are warranted. Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff in the sum of $340, consisting of one hour at defense counsel’s hourly rate and $120 in filing fees.

The unopposed motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff Natalie Serrano is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Defendants’ first set of Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents.

Defendants’ request for sanctions against Plaintiff is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the sum of $340 to Defendant, by and through their counsel. ¿

Discovery responses are to be provided, and sanctions are to be paid within 30 days of the date of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Defendants reserved three hearings and filed three motions. However, two of the motions (regarding the form interrogatories) are duplicative. Accordingly, the court rules only on the following sets of discovery: form interrogatories and request for production of documents.