Judge Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case Number: 23SMCV04120, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case: 23SMCV04120, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Defendants Robert Lachase, Vertical Ride Solutions, and Robert A. Slack’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Samantha De Leon shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendants Robert Lachase, Vertical Ride Solutions, and Robert A. Slack’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents, Set One, without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendants Robert Lachase, Vertical Ride Solutions, and Robert A. Slack’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,684.95, payable by Plaintiff Samantha De Leon and Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendants Robert Lachase, Vertical Ride Solutions, and Robert A. Slack and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

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 Robert Lachase, Vertical Ride Solutions, and Robert A. Slack (“Defendants”) served Plaintiff Samantha De Leon (“Plaintiff”) with their Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents, Set One, on November 27, 2023. (Mots., Huizar Decls. ¶ 2.) Defense counsel communicated with Plaintiff’s counsel about the lack of timely repsonses, and Defendants granted two extensions to provide responses. (Mots., Huizar Decls. ¶¶ 3-5.) To date, no responses have been received.

Accordingly, Defendants Robert Lachase, Vertical Ride Solutions, and Robert A. Slack’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED, Defendants Robert Lachase, Vertical Ride Solutions, and Robert A. Slack’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED, and Defendants Robert Lachase, Vertical Ride Solutions, and Robert A. Slack’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff Samantha De Leon shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendants Robert Lachase, Vertical Ride Solutions, and Robert A. Slack’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production 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.)

Defendants request $561.65 in monetary sanctions for each motion. The Court finds that the requested monetary sanctions are proper, as the amount is reasonable, as it reflects two hours spent preparing each motion, at the rate of $250 per hour, and one filing fee for each motion. Thus, Defendants Robert Lachase, Vertical Ride Solutions, and Robert A. Slack’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,684.95, payable by Plaintiff Samantha De Leon and Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendants Robert Lachase, Vertical Ride Solutions, and Robert A. Slack and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.