Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On July 20, 2021, Plaintiff Maricel Pitcher (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Joseph Fahr, D.D.S., doing business as Beautiful Smith Dental Center, and Does 1-10 for dental malpractice. 

On September 7, 2021, Defendant, Joseph Peyman Fahr, D.D.S. (erroneously named and sued as Joseph Fahr, DDS, doing business as Beautiful Smile Dental Center) (“Defendant”) filed an answer. 

On April 28, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel further discovery responses. The Court ordered Plaintiff to serve further discovery responses and pay Defendant $2,600 in sanctions by May 26, 2022. 

On July 6, 2022, the Court found that Plaintiff had not fully complied with the Court’s April 28, 2022, order. The Court ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 14 and code-compliant responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 11 (indicating that Plaintiff has made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry to locate the items requested (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230)) by July 21, 2022. In addition, the Court ordered Plaintiff and her counsel to pay Defendant $2,510 in sanctions by August 6, 2022.  The Court denied Defendant’s request for terminating sanctions. 

On September 29, 2023, the Court found that Plaintiff had not complied with the Court’s April 28, 2022 order to pay Defendant $2,600.00 in sanctions by May 26, 2022 and had not shown good cause or substantial justification for the failure to pay these amounts.  The Court granted Defendant’s request to impose additional sanctions to penalize Plaintiff for disobeying the Court’s April 28, 2022 order and ordered Plaintiff to pay the Court $500 in sanctions by October 30, 2023. 

On August 29, 2023, Defendant filed motions (1) to compel further responses to request for production of documents, set five and (2) to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set five.  The motions were set to be heard on November 15, 2023.  On November 7, 2023, Defendant filed notices of non-opposition stating that Plaintiff had failed to file oppositions by the filing deadline.  On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed oppositions to the motions. 

On November 6, 2023, counsel for the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference with the Court. 

Trial is currently scheduled for March 28, 2024. 

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 

A.      Informal Discovery Conference 

The Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective October 10, 2022 (Filed September 20, 2022), ¶ 9E, provides: “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).  PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.” 

The parties participated in an IDC on November 6, 2023. 

B.       Timeliness of motions 

A notice of motion to compel further responses must be given within 45 days of the service of the responses, or any supplemental responses, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c).) Failure to file a motion within this time period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses to requests for production of documents and interrogatories. 

Defendants filed the motions on August 29, 2023.  Plaintiff does not dispute the timeliness of the motions. 

C.   Meet and confer 

“A motion to compel must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)  “A meet and confer declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good-faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)  

Defendant has satisfied his meet and confer obligation. 

D.      Separate statement 

With exceptions that do not apply here, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is warranted.  

Defendant filed separate statements for both motions. 

APPLICABLE LAW 

A.      Inspection demand 

“(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: 

“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. 

“(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. 

“(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. 

“(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following: 

“(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. 

“(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. 

“(3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute. 

“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand. 

* * *

“(h) Except as provided in subdivision (j), 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 further response to a demand, 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., § 2031.310, subds. (a), (b), (c), (h).) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 provides: 

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) 

B.       Interrogatories 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a) provides:         

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: 

“(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. 

“(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. 

“(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (c), provides: 

“If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) 

C.    Discovery sanctions 

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) 

“Misuses of the discovery process include . . . 

* * *
“(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.) 

I.        Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to demand for production of documents, set five 

Propounded: April 30, 2023

Responses:   July 17, 2023 

In a declaration supporting Plaintiff’s opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that on September 28, 2023, he provided further responses to the request for production of documents.  Plaintiff’s counsel has attached to his declaration, as Exhibit A, an undated document titled “Responses to Request for Production and Inspection of Documents” which appears to contain the deficient responses served on July 17, 2023.  The proof of service attached to the document is titled “Amended Response to Production of Documents” and is dated September 28, 2023.  The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff supplemented her discovery responses on September 28, 2023 as Plaintiff’s counsel contends. 

Granted:  63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94 

Defendant requests sanctions of $4,980 based on 12.3 hours of attorney time at a rate of $400 per hour.  Counsel spent 1 hour meeting and conferring, 7 hours to draft the moving papers, .5 hours to review and analyze the opposition, 2 hours to draft a reply, .1 hours to review the tentative ruling, .5 hours to prepare for the hearing, and 1.2 hours to check in and attend the hearing.  In addition, Defendant seeks recovery of a filing fee of $60. 

The Court does not award attorney’s fees for meeting and conferring.  In addition, the Court did not receive a reply. 

The Court grants sanctions of $1,060 based on 4 hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250 per hour plus the $60 filing fee. 

II.      Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set five 

Propounded: April 30, 2023

Responses:  July 17, 2023 

Granted: 76, 77 

Defendant requests sanctions of $3,920 based on 9.8 hours of attorney time at a rate of $400 per hour.  Counsel spent 1 hour meeting and conferring, 4.5 hours to draft the moving papers, .5 hours to review and analyze the opposition, 2 hours to draft a reply, .1 hours to review the tentative ruling, .5 hours to prepare for the hearing, and 1.2 hours to check in and attend the hearing.  In addition, Defendant seeks recovery of a filing fee of $60. 

The Court does not award attorney’s fees for meeting and conferring.  In addition, the Court did not receive a reply. 

The Court grants sanctions of $810 based on 3 hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250 per hour plus the $60 filing fee. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel further responses to the request for production of documents, set five, filed by Defendant Joseph Peyman Fahr, D.D.S. (erroneously named and sued as Joseph Fahr, DDS, doing business as Beautiful Smile Dental Center).  The Court orders Plaintiff Maricel Pitcher to provide further verified and code-compliant responses to numbers 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, and 94 and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested by December 18, 2023. 

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel further responses to the special interrogatories, set five, filed by Defendant Joseph Peyman Fahr, D.D.S. (erroneously named and sued as Joseph Fahr, DDS, doing business as Beautiful Smile Dental Center).  The Court orders Plaintiff Maricel Pitcher to provide further verified and code-compliant responses to numbers 76 and 77 by December 18, 2023. 

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s requests for sanctions.  Plaintiff Maricel Pitcher and her counsel are ordered to pay Defendant Joseph Peyman Fahr, D.D.S. (erroneously named and sued as Joseph Fahr, DDS, doing business as Beautiful Smile Dental Center) $1,870 ($1,060 plus $810) by December 18, 2023. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.