Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 20STCV15852, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 inspection demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required.

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that must be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.)

Defendant Don Rufus Hankey Jr. moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Jane Doe no. 1 to provide responses to 1) Supplemental Interrogatories (SROG); and 2) Supplemental Requests for Documents (RPD). Defendant also requests sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $3,444.75.

On March 8, 2024, Defendant served his supplemental SROG and RPD on Plaintiff. (Harlan Decls., ¶ 2, Exs. A.) On March 26, 2024, Defendant’s counsel provided Plaintiff with electronic courtesy copies of all of Defendant’s outstanding discovery requests. (Id. at ¶ 3, Ex. B.) Plaintiff had until April 9, 2024, to serve responses to the supplemental discovery. On April 12, 2024, Defendant inquired with Plaintiff whether she would be providing responses to the outstanding discovery requests. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s counsel’s email or provided any discovery responses.

Defendant requests that the court impose $3,444.75 in sanctions against Plaintiff. Sanctions are mandatory, 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. (See, e.g., CCP § 2030.290(c).) Plaintiff failed to respond to this motion and therefore failed to justify her non-response to the discovery. Thus, sanctions are mandatory. Defendants claim 6 hours of attorney-time at $465/hr. and 1.3 hours of attorney-time at $485/hr. for a total of $3,444.75 in fees. The Court finds the time spent on the cited tasks to be unreasonable in light of the relative simplicity of the underlying discovery and motions. Using the lodestar method, the Court finds that a reasonable fee in this instance would be $1,880.00, plus costs of $120.00 for the two motions.