Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01649, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01649    Hearing Date: November 6, 2024    Dept: C

SANTOS, et al. v. SPRINGER, et al.

CASE NO.:  22NWCV01649

HEARING:  11/06/2024

#3

TENATIVE ORDER

Defendants’ Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents are GRANTED. Plaintiff Fariba Santos is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to the discovery requests within 30 days of this order.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff Fariba Santos and counsel of record Liana Ter-Oganesyan are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendants’ counsel in the amount of $620, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.

Moving Party to give Notice.

This personal injury action arises out of a vehicle collision. On December 19, 2022, Plaintiffs Fariba Santos, Gabriel Herrarte, Zareena Herrarte, Rayleena Muniz, and Raider Muniz filed a complaint against Defendants Laine Springer, and Kurt Springer, alleging causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

Defendants move to compel Plaintiff Fariba Santos’ responses to request for production and form interrogatories, and they also request monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel of record. No opposition has been filed.

“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., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need 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.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.  There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. 

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with 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).) 

Under CCP section 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that 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.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) 

On November 1, 2023, Defendants propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One on Plaintiff Fariba Santos. (Maxwell Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Responses were due on December 5, 2023. (Id., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff failed to respond. (Id.) Despite sending Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter and requesting the overdue responses, Defendants have still not received Plaintiff’s verified responses. (Id., ¶ 5; Exhs. B-C.)

As Defendants properly served the requests for discovery, and Plaintiff has failed to provide responses, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to a court order directing Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to the discovery requests served on Plaintiff.  Therefore, the motions are granted. 

As the motions are granted, Defendant’s requests for sanctions are also granted, but in a reduced amount due to the simplicity of the motions and the nature of the concurrent facts. Thus, the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel of record in the amount of $620 ($500 per hour x 1 hour, plus $120 in filing fees), to be paid within 30 days of this order.