TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants/Cross-Complainants James Foster and Lane Marsh Realty, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is DENIED as MOOT.

Defendants/Cross-Complainants James Foster and Lane Marsh Realty, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is DENIED as MOOT.

Defendants/Cross-Complainants James Foster and Lane Marsh Realty, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Identification and Inspection of Documents is DENIED as MOOT.

Defendants/Cross-Complainants James Foster and Lane Marsh Realty, Inc.’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,363, payable by Plaintiff Alyssa Balken and Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendants/Cross-Complainants James Foster and Lane Marsh Realty, Inc. and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendants/Cross-Complainants James Foster and Lane Marsh Realty, Inc. to give notice. 

REASONING

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].)

Defendants/Cross-Complainants James Foster and Lane Marsh Realty, Inc. (“Defendants”) served Plaintiff Alyssa Balken (“Plaintiff”) with their Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Identification and Inspection of Documents, Set One, on August 6, 2024. (Mots., Palta Decls. ¶ 4.) Responses were due on or before September 7, 2024, and counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to request responses by September 19, 2024. (Mots., Palta Decls. ¶ 4, Ex. B.) No responses were received by the date of filing the motions. (Mots., Palta Decls. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff represents that responses were provided on October 29, 2024. (Opp’ns, Kim Decls. ¶ 2.)

Accordingly, Defendants/Cross-Complainants James Foster and Lane Marsh Realty, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is DENIED as MOOT, Defendants/Cross-Complainants James Foster and Lane Marsh Realty, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is DENIED as MOOT, and Defendants/Cross-Complainants James Foster and Lane Marsh Realty, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Identification and Inspection of Documents is DENIED as MOOT.

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).)

Defendants request $568.65 in monetary sanctions for each motion. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are proper, but the Court reduces the amount to $1,363, representing two hours spent preparing each motion and one hour spent appearing at the hearing on the motions, totaling seven hours at the rate of $169 per hour, as well as three filing fees of $60. Thus, Defendants/Cross-Complainants James Foster and Lane Marsh Realty, Inc.’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,363, payable by Plaintiff Alyssa Balken and Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendants/Cross-Complainants James Foster and Lane Marsh Realty, Inc. and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.