Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV07256, Date: 2024-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07256    Hearing Date: January 8, 2024    Dept: 30

STEVEN A. DANZIGER vs MICHAEL ANTHONY MANISKAS

TENTATIVE

Defendant Michael Anthony Maniskas’ motions to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production for documents are GRANTED.

Plaintiff Steven Danziger is ordered to provide responses without objection to Defendant’s request for form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and request for production, set one, within 20 days of this order.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Discussion

On January 6, 2023, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on Plaintiff. (Webb Decl., Exhs. A.) Responses were due by February 8, 2023. No responses were provided. (Id., ¶ 4.)

As Defendant properly served discovery requests and Plaintiff has failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to a court order directing Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to the discovery requests served on Plaintiff. Therefore, the motions are granted.

Defendant also requests sanctions. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) allow for sanctions when the motion was unsuccessfully opposed. Here, as the motions were not opposed, the request for sanctions is denied.

Defendant’s request for sanctions under CCP section 2023.010 for the misuse of discovery is also denied, as "sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery.” (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504.)