TENTATIVE RULINGS

Defendant Wilbert A. Franco’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Answer Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Pay Costs and Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff Isa Jonay is ordered to serve initial responses to those special interrogatories, without objections, within 30 days of this ruling. Plaintiff is further ordered to pay the defendant sanctions of $860 for necessitating the special interrogatories motion.

Defendant Wilbert A. Franco’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Demand for Production, Set One, and Pay Costs and Sanctions is GRANTED as follows. Plaintiff Isa Jonay is ordered to serve initial responses to those requests for production, without objections, within 30 days of this ruling. Plaintiff is further ordered to pay the defendant additional sanctions of $460 for the requests for production motion.

Defendant Wilbert A. Franco to give notice.

REASONING

“Within 30 days after service” of a demand for inspection or interrogatories, the responding party shall serve responses to the discovery “unless on motion” the court has shortened or extended the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.260, subd. (a); 2030.260, subd. (a).)

Failure to serve timely responses to demands for inspection and interrogatories results in the responding party waiving any objection to the discovery requests, including those based on privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.300, subd. (a); 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Here, defense counsel testifies that Defendant propounded Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Demand for Production Set One on Plaintiff on or about March 6, 2024, and on or about July 22, 2024, respectively. (Motions, Declarations of David M. Hillier (“Hillier Decl.”), ¶ 2; Exhibits A – a copy of the discovery requests.) Despite defense counsel notifying Plaintiff’s counsel that Plaintiff’s discovery responses were overdue, Defendant had not received Plaintiff’s discovery responses as of the date Defendant filed the instant motions. (Hillier Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4.)

In light of defense counsel’s declarations and Plaintiff’s failure to file oppositions, Defendant’s request for orders compelling Plaintiff to serve initial responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Demand for Production, Set One is GRANTED.

Defendant seeks sanction of $860 for the interrogatories motion. The amount consists of 2 hours defense counsel spent on the moving papers, 2 hours counsel anticipates traveling to the Court and attending the hearing, a total of 4 hours at counsel’s billing rate of $200 per hour (equals $800), plus a $60 filing fee. (Hillier Decl., ¶ 5.)

The Court finds the interrogatories’ sanctions warranted and also finds the requested sanctions of $860 reasonable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c) [“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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”].) 

Therefore, Defendant’s request for sanctions of $860 for the interrogatories motion is GRANTED.

With regard to the demand for production motion, Defendant seeks sanctions of $1,860. Like the interrogatories motion, that amount includes 2 hours defense counsel spent on the moving papers, 2 hours counsel anticipates traveling to the Court and attending the hearing, a total of 4 hours at counsel’s billing rate of $200 per hour (equals $800), plus a $60 filing fee. (Hillier Decl., 5.) The requested sanctions of $1,860 also includes Defendant’s request of $1,000 sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050 (“Section 2023.050”). 

As Defendant points out, Section 2023.050 states: “Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to any other sanctions imposed pursuant to this chapter, a court shall impose a one-thousand-dollar ($1,000) sanction, payable to the requesting party, upon a party, person, or attorney if, upon reviewing a request for a sanction made pursuant to Section 2023.040, the court finds any of the following: ¶ (1) The party, person, or attorney did not respond in good faith to a request for the production of documents made pursuant to Section 2020.010, 2020.410, 2020.510, or 2025.210, or to an inspection demand made pursuant to Section 2031.010” (emphasis added). 

Here, however, Plaintiff did not respond at all. Defendant has not cited any law holding that failure to respond constitutes failure to respond in good faith within the meaning of Section 2023.050. 

Further, discovery sanctions are not supposed to be punitive. (See Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 285, 301 [“It is well established ‘the purpose of discovery sanctions “is not ‘to provide a weapon for punishment, forfeiture and the avoidance of a trial on the merits,’”... but to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented[.]’ [Footnote omitted.] Consistent with this statement of purpose the appellate courts have held ‘[t]he penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery’”]; Bauguess v. Paine (1978) 22 Cal.3d 626, 637 [Even in the discovery context, where attorney’s fees are permitted as sanctions …, a purely punitive award of $1,000 in attorney’s fees has not been allowed”].)

Therefore, the Court declines to impose Section 2023.050 sanctions on Plaintiff.

However, the Court finds it proper to impose other sanctions on Plaintiff for necessitating the demand for production motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c) [stating that sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to demands 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”].) 

Defense counsel testifies that he will spend 2 hours traveling and appearing in Court for the demand for production motion. However, counsel has already requested sanctions for travel and appearance fees in the special interrogatories motion. 

Therefore, the Court will only impose sanctions of $460 against Plaintiff for the demand motion. That amount represents 2 hours defense counsel spent on the moving papers at his billing rate of $200 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. 

For those reasons, Defendant’s request for sanctions in connection with the demand for production motion is GRANTED, but in the reduced amount of $460, for a total sanction award of $1,320.