TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Stanley Breitbard’s Motion to Compel, Plaintiff, Touran Assil [sic], Responses to Specially Prepared Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Touran Assil shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendant Stanley Breitbard’s Specially Prepared Interrogatories (Set One), without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant Stanley Breitbard’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Touran Assil [sic] Responses to Demand for Identification and Inspection of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Touran Assil shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendant Stanley Breitbard’s Demand for Identification and Inspection of Documents (Set One), without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant Stanley Breitbard’s Requests for Monetary Sanction are GRANTED in the reduced amount of $945, payable by Plaintiff Touran Assil and Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant Stanley Breitbard and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendant Stanley Breitbard 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].)

Defendant Stanley Breitbard (“Defendant”) served Plaintiff Touran Assil (“Plaintiff”) with his Specially Prepared Interrogatories (Set One) and Demand for Identification and Inspection of Documents (Set One) on January 31, 2025. (Mots., Kothary Decls. ¶ 2.) On March 13, 2025, defense counsel communicated with Plaintiff via letter to request verified responses to the discovery. (Mots., Kothary Decls. ¶ 3.) To date, no responses have been received. (Mots., Kothary Decls. ¶ 5.)

Accordingly, Defendant Stanley Breitbard’s Motion to Compel, Plaintiff, Touran Assil [sic], Responses to Specially Prepared Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED, and Defendant Stanley Breitbard’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Touran Assil [sic] Responses to Demand for Identification and Inspection of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED. Plaintiff Touran Assil shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendant Stanley Breitbard’s Specially Prepared Interrogatories (Set One) and Demand for Identification and Inspection of Documents (Set One), without objections, within thirty (30) 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).) An order granting a request for monetary sanctions is proper where unsworn responses are provided. (See Appleton, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at p. 636.)

Defendant requests $720 in monetary sanctions for each motion. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are proper, but the Court reduces the amount to $945, representing two hours spent preparing each motion and one hour spent appearing at the hearing on the motions, totaling five hours at the rate of $165 per hour, as well as two filing fees. Thus, Defendant Stanley Breitbard’s Request for Monetary Sanction is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $555, payable by Plaintiff Touran Assil and Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant Stanley Breitbard and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.