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

BACKGROUND 

On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff Malvina Mkhchyan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Margaret Mary Lewis (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for negligence.  

On August 25, 2023, Defendant filed motions to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendant’s first set of special interrogatories and first set of form interrogatories.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS 

          Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to serve responses to special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one.  Defendant also asks for $1,123.30 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and her counsel. 

Trial is currently scheduled for June 13, 2024. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

      A.   Interrogatories 

“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260.)  

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: 

“(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: 

“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. 

“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. 

“(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. 

“(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. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) 

          B.   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, but are not limited to . . . 

* * *

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

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) 

DISCUSSION