TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Christian Carrillo’s Motion to Compel Cross-Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

Cross-Defendant Mohammed Tehrani shall serve code-compliant responses to Plaintiff Christian Carrillo’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff Christian Carrillo’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,010, payable by Cross-Defendant Mohammed Tehrani and defense counsel to Plaintiff Christian Carrillo and Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Marc Milo Mandel’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED.

Cross-Defendant Mohammed Tehrani shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Marc Milo Mandel’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Marc Milo Mandel’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $430, payable by Cross-Defendant Mohammed Tehrani and defense counsel to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Marc Milo Mandel and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bill Lee’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED.

Cross-Defendant Mohammed Tehrani shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bill Lee’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bill Lee’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $430, payable by Cross-Defendant Mohammed Tehrani and defense counsel to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bill Lee and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Moving parties to give notice. 

REASONING

Motion to Compel Cross-Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, and Request for Sanctions

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.)

Plaintiff Christian Carrillo (“Plaintiff”) served Cross-Defendant Mohammed Tehrani (“Cross-Defendant”) with his Form Interrogatories, Set One, on July 12, 2023. (Mot., Slipski Decl. ¶ 4.) Responses were due on or before August 16, 2023, and counsel provided seven extensions to provide responses. (Mot., Slipski Decl. ¶¶ 5-12.) To date, no responses have been received. (Mot., Slipski Decl. ¶ 13.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff Christian Carrillo’s Motion to Compel Cross-Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Cross-Defendant Mohammed Tehrani shall serve code-compliant responses to Plaintiff Christian Carrillo’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections, 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).) 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 $2,000 in monetary sanctions for the motion. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are proper, but the Court reduces the amount to $1,010, representing one hour spent preparing the motion and one hour spent appearing at the hearing on the motion, totaling two hours at the rate of $475 per hour, as well as one filing fee of $60. Accordingly, Plaintiff Christian Carrillo’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,010, payable by Cross-Defendant Mohammed Tehrani and defense counsel to Plaintiff Christian Carrillo and Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Marc Milo Mandel’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and Monetary Sanction Against Mohammed Tehrani for $435.00

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/Cross-Complainant Marc Milo Mandel (“Mandel”) served Cross-Defendant with his Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on October 20, 2023. (Mot., Torsney Decl. ¶ 2.) To date, no responses have been received. (Mot., Torsney Decl. ¶ 3.) Thus, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Marc Milo Mandel’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED. Cross-Defendant Mohammed Tehrani shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Marc Milo Mandel’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, without objections, 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).)

Mandel requests $435 in monetary sanctions for the motion. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are proper, but the Court reduces the amount to $430, representing two hours spent preparing the motion at the rate of $185 per hour, as well as one filing fee of $60. Accordingly, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Marc Milo Mandel’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $430, payable by Cross-Defendant Mohammed Tehrani and defense counsel to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Marc Milo Mandel and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bill Lee’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Monetary Damages Against Mohammed Tehrani for $435

Again, 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, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 905-906.)

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bill Lee (“Lee”) served Cross-Defendant with his Special Interrogatories, Set One, on October 20, 2023. (Mot., Torsney Decl. ¶ 2.) To date, no responses have been received. (Mot., Torsney Decl. ¶ 3.) Thus, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bill Lee’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Cross-Defendant Mohammed Tehrani shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bill Lee’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Again, 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).) 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 $435 in monetary sanctions for the motion. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are proper, but the Court reduces the amount to $430, representing two hours spent preparing the motion at the rate of $185 per hour, as well as one filing fee of $60. Accordingly, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bill Lee’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $430, payable by Cross-Defendant Mohammed Tehrani and defense counsel to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bill Lee and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.