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

BACKGROUND 

On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff Lorie Arms (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Maria Garcia (“Defendant”) and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort. 

On February 15, 2023, Defendant filed an answer. 

On July 6, 2023, the parties participated in an informal discovery conference with the Court. 

On August 11, 2023, Defendant filed (1) a motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, (2) a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, and for sanctions, and (3) a motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. 

On August 17, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to compel further responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, set one, and for sanctions. 

On September 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to deem admitted the matters specified in requests for admission. 

On September 15, 2023, Defendant took the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission off calendar. 

The Court continued the hearings on the remaining motions to October 11, 2023. 

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 July 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 interrogatories. 

Defendant filed her motions on the dates set forth above.  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's counsel has provided declarations that describe reasonable efforts to meet and confer with Plaintiff's counsel. 

D.      Separate statement 

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, requires that motions 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 the motion to compel further responses to the special interrogatories and the demand for inspection and production of documents.  Defendant states that a separate statement is not required for the motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories because Plaintiff did not provide any responses to the form interrogatories that are the subject of this motion. 

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).) 

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).)

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 inspection and production of documents, set one

A.   Defendant’s motion 

On February 15, 2023, Defendant propounded a demand for inspection and production of documents, set one, on Plaintiff.  Plaintiff’s responses were due by March 20, 2023.  Defendant’s counsel granted Plaintiff’s counsel two extensions of time to respond to the discovery request. 

On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff served unverified responses to the discovery but did not produce any responsive documents.  On April 20, 2023, Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting code compliant responses and production of responsive documents.  

On July 14, 2023, after receiving assurances that Plaintiff’s counsel was working on providing discovery responses, Defendant’s counsel granted Plaintiff’s counsel an extension of time to respond to the discovery. 

On July 25, 2023, Defendant’s counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that Defendant would file a motion to compel if Defendant did not receive the responses by July 28, 2023. 

When Defendant filed this motion on August 17, 2023, Plaintiff had not provided any verified responses to the discovery or identified or produced any responsive documents. Plaintiff had not (a) responded to Defendant’s July 25, 2023 meet and confer letter, (b) sought a further extension, or (c) made any further effort to meet and confer about the subject discovery. 

B.   Plaintiff’s opposition 

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion. 

C.   Rulings 

Granted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 

Defendant requests $3,233.02 in sanctions based on 19.8 hours of attorney hour time at a rate of $160.17 per hour, including 1.7 hours for meet and confer communications with opposing counsel, 13.8 hours to prepare the motion papers, an anticipated 3.0 hours to review any opposing papers and prepare s reply, an anticipated 1.0 hour for appearance on the motion, and an anticipated 0.3 hours to prepare notice of ruling, as well one $61.65 motion filing fee. 

The Court grants sanctions of $542.16 based on 3 hours of attorney time and one filing fee. 

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

A.   Defendant’s motion 

On February 15, 2023, Defendant propounded special interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff.  Plaintiff’s responses were due by March 20, 2023.  Defendant’s counsel granted Plaintiff’s counsel two extensions of time to respond to the discovery request. 

On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff served unverified responses to the discovery.  On April 20, 2023, Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting code compliant responses.  

On July 14, 2023, after receiving assurances that Plaintiff’s counsel was working on providing discovery responses, Defendant’s counsel granted Plaintiff’s counsel an extension of time to respond to the discovery. 

On July 25, 2023, Defendant’s counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that Defendant would file a motion to compel if Defendant did not receive the responses by July 28, 2023. 

When Defendant filed this motion on August 17, 2023, Plaintiff had not provided any verified responses to the discovery. Plaintiff had not (a) responded to Defendant’s July 25, 2023 meet and confer letter, (b) sought a further extension, or (c) made any further effort to meet and confer about the subject discovery. 

B.   Plaintiff’s opposition

  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion.

C. Rulings

  Granted:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 

Defendant requests $3,233.02 in sanctions based on 19.8 hours of attorney hour time at a rate of $160.17 per hour, including 1.7 hours for meet and confer communications with opposing counsel, 13.8 hours to prepare the motion papers, an anticipated 3.0 hours to review any opposing papers and prepare s reply, an anticipated 1.0 hour for appearance on the motion, and an anticipated 0.3 hours to prepare notice of ruling, as well one $61.65 motion filing fee. 

The Court grants sanctions of $542.16 based on 3 hours of attorney time and one filing fee. 

III. Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one 

A.   Defendant’s motion 

On February 15, 2023, Defendant propounded form interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff.  Plaintiff’s responses were due by March 20, 2023.  Defendant’s counsel granted Plaintiff’s counsel two extensions of time to respond to the discovery request. 

On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff served unverified responses to the discovery.  Plaintiff did not provide any responses to the interrogatories that are the subject of this motion: Form Interrogatory Nos. 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 17.1 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, 20.4, 20.5, 20.6, 20.7, 20.8, 20.9, 20.10, and 20.11. 

On April 20, 2023, Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting code compliant responses.  

On July 14, 2023, after receiving assurances that Plaintiff’s counsel was working on providing discovery responses, Defendant’s counsel granted Plaintiff’s counsel an extension of time to respond to the discovery. 

On July 25, 2023, Defendant’s counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that Defendant would file a motion to compel if Defendant did not receive the responses by July 28, 2023. 

When Defendant filed this motion on August 17, 2023, Plaintiff had not provided any verified responses to the discovery. Plaintiff had not (a) responded to Defendant’s July 25, 2023 meet and confer letter, (b) sought a further extension, or (c) made any further effort to meet and confer about the subject discovery. 

B.   Plaintiff’s opposition 

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion. 

C.   Rulings 

Granted: 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 17.1 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, 20.4, 20.5, 20.6, 20.7, 20.8, 20.9, 20.10, and 20.11

  Defendant requests $ 2,464.20 in sanctions based on 15.0 hours of attorney hour time at a rate of $160.17 per hour, including 1.7 hours for meet and confer communications with opposing counsel, 9.3 hours to prepare the motion papers, an anticipated 3.0 hours to review any opposing papers and prepare s reply, an anticipated 1.0 hour for appearance on the motion, and an anticipated 0.3 hours to prepare notice of ruling, as well one $61.65 motion filing fee. 

The Court grants sanctions of $542.16 based on 3 hours of attorney time and one filing fee. 

CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Defendant Maria Garcia’s motion to compel further responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, set one.  Plaintiff Lorie Arms is ordered to produce further verified and code-compliant responses to Defendant Maria Garcia’s demand for inspection and production of documents, set one, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested by November 13, 2023. 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Maria Garcia’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one.  Plaintiff Lorie Arms is ordered to produce further verified and code-compliant responses to Defendant Maria Garcia’s special interrogatories, set one, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, by November 13, 2023. 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Maria Garcia’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one.  Plaintiff Lorie Arms is ordered to produce further verified and code-compliant responses to Defendant Maria Garcia’s form interrogatories, set one, numbers 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 17.1 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, 20.4, 20.5, 20.6, 20.7, 20.8, 20.9, 20.10, and 20.11, by November 13, 2023. 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Maria Garcia’s requests for sanctions on each motion and orders Plaintiff Lorie Arms and her counsel to pay Defendant Maria Garcia $1,626.48 ($542.16 for each motion) by November 13, 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.