Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV14890, Date: 2024-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14890    Hearing Date: December 2, 2024    Dept: 61

STEWART LUCAS MURREY vs KELLY GIBBONS, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Stewart Lucas Murrey’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production from Defendant Kelly Gibbons are GRANTED. Defendant Kelly Gibbons is ordered to serve responses without objections within 20 days of filing of Notice of Ruling. No sanctions are awarded.

Plaintiff to provide notice to all parties, and file Notice of Ruling with proof of service to the court.

DISCUSSION

A propounding party may demand a responding party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

A party who fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

Plaintiff Stewart Lucas Murrey (Plaintiff) moves to compel responses from Defendant Kelly Gibbons (Defendant) to Requests for Production and Form and Special Interrogatories. Plaintiff served this discovery on February 13, 2024. (Murrey Decl. ¶ 15.) But Plaintiff has received no response. (Murrey Decl. ¶¶ 16–17.)

Plaintiff has shown that discovery was duly served, but no response has been received. Gibbons has filed no opposition to the present motions.

The motions to compel are therefore GRANTED.

II. SANCTIONS

The prevailing party on a motion to compel is generally entitled to monetary sanctions, unless the court “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, 2031.300.) Sanctions are also mandatory against a party whose failure to serve responses to requests for admission makes the motion necessary. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff seeks sanctions with his motions, but does not specify an amount. Plaintiff is self-represented and cannot seek attorney fees. (See Ellis Law Group, LLP v. Nevada City Sugar Loaf Properties, LLC (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 244, 253.) No sanctions are awarded.