TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant MAPFRE Insurance Company’s Second Motion to Compel is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs Gevorg Manoukian, Aram Manoukian, and Anna Manoukian shall serve responses to Defendant MAPFRE Insurance Company’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Supplemental Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, without objections, within twenty (20) days of entry of this order.

Defendant MAPFRE Insurance Company’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant MAPFRE Insurance Company shall pay eleven (11) additional filing fees of $60 within ten (10) days of entry of this order.

Defendant MAPFRE Insurance Company to give notice. 

REASONING

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendant MAPFRE Insurance Company (“Defendant”) has filed twelve motions as one, that is, two motions to compel responses to form interrogatories as to each of the three plaintiffs, one motion to compel responses to special interrogatories as to each of the three plaintiffs, and one motion to compel responses to requests for production as to each of the three plaintiffs Defendant is required to pay eleven (11) additional filing fees of $60 within ten (10) days of entry of this order. Defendant is advised that future failures to reserve the proper amount of hearing dates per motion in this manner will result in taking the motions off calendar until the proper amount of hearing dates have been reserved.

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, subds. (b), (c).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) 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.)

Similarly, where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (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. (Ibid.) 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. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. (Contra Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1) [good cause requirement for motion to compel further responses].)

Defendant served Plaintiffs Gevorg Manoukian, Aram Manoukian, and Anna Manoukian with its Form Interrogatories (Set One), Supplemental Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, by email on September 28, 2023. (Mot., Chan Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) To date, no responses have been received. (Mot., Chan Decl. ¶ 17.) Accordingly, Defendant MAPFRE Insurance Company’s Second Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Gevorg Manoukian, Aram Manoukian, and Anna Manoukian shall serve responses to Defendant MAPFRE Insurance Company’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Supplemental Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, without objections, within twenty (20) days of entry of this order.

If a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for production is filed, the Court may impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “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).) Further, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Defendant requests $2,047.50 in monetary sanctions for the motion. The Court declines to award monetary sanctions here, as counsel provides no evidence that he attempted to obtain responses from Plaintiffs, instead rushing to file this motion within days of the deadline to provide responses, which does not encourage informal resolution of discovery disputes as favored by the Court. Accordingly, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.