TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff David Katzoff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED.

Defendant Fahin Kamrany shall provide code compliant responses to Plaintiff David Katzoff’s Request for Production, Set One, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff David Katzoff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $750.00, payable by Defendant Fahin Kamrany and defense counsel to Plaintiff David Katzoff and Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff David Katzoff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two is GRANTED.

Defendant Michael Shair Kamrany shall provide code compliant responses to Plaintiff David Katzoff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff David Katzoff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $750.00, payable by Defendant Michael Shair Kamrany and defense counsel to Plaintiff David Katzoff and Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff David Katzoff to give notice. 

REASONING

Plaintiff David Katzoff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

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.) 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].)

Plaintiff David Katzoff (“Plaintiff”) served Defendant Fahin Kamrany with his Request for Production, Set One, on October 26, 2022. (Mot., Toscano Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Responses were due on or before November 29, 2022, and Plaintiff’s counsel offered Kamrany extensions to provide responses. (Mot., Toscano Decl. ¶¶ 4-10.) To date, no responses have been received. (Mot., Toscano Decl. ¶ 11.) Thus, Plaintiff David Katzoff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED. Defendant Fahin Kamrany shall provide code compliant responses to Plaintiff David Katzoff’s Request for Production, Set One, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

If a motion to compel responses to 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., § 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).)

Plaintiff requests $2,100 in monetary sanctions for the motion. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are proper, but the Court reduces the amount to $750, representing two hours spent preparing the motion and one-half hour spent appearing at the hearing on the motion, totaling two and one-half hours, at the rate of $300 per hour given this is a simple, non-complex motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff David Katzoff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $750.00, payable by Defendant Fahin Kamrany and defense counsel to Plaintiff David Katzoff and Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff David Katzoff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) 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.)

Plaintiff served Defendant Michael Shair Kamrany with his Special Interrogatories, Set Two, on November 8, 2022. (Mot., Toscano Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Responses were due on or before December 12, 2022, and Plaintiff’s counsel offered Kamrany an extension to provide responses. (Mot., Toscano Decl. ¶¶ 4-7.) To date, no responses have been received. (Mot., Toscano Decl. ¶ 8.) Thus, Plaintiff David Katzoff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two is GRANTED. Defendant Michael Shair Kamrany shall provide code compliant responses to Plaintiff David Katzoff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

If a motion to compel responses to interrogatories 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).) Again, “[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).)

Plaintiff again requests $2,100 in monetary sanctions for the motion. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are proper, but the Court again reduces the amount to $750, representing two hours spent preparing the motion and one-half hour spent appearing at the hearing on the motion, totaling two and one-half hours, at the rate of $300 per hour given this is a simple, non-complex motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff David Katzoff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $750.00, payable by Defendant Michael Shair Kamrany and defense counsel to Plaintiff David Katzoff and Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.