Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV00083, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV00083 Hearing Date: December 15, 2022 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Shawbeth v. Kohan, et al.
CASE NO.: 22SMCV00083
MOTION: Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses as to Requests for Production and Form Interrogatories
HEARING DATE: 12/15/2022
BACKGROUND
On November 17, 2022, Plaintiff Shawbeth Inc. filed five motions to compel initial discovery responses from Defendant Kohan. Plaintiff requests: 1) to deem requests for admissions admitted; 2) compel responses to form interrogatories – general; 3) compel responses to form interrogatories – UD; 4) compel responses to demand for inspection and production of documents; and 5) compel responses to special interrogatories.
Plaintiff requests $1,465.00 in sanctions as to each motion, except the request for production motion which requests $1,765.00.
This hearing concerns motions to compel Form Interrogatories — Unlawful Detainer (Set One) and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set One) No oppositions were filed.
Legal Standard
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 need 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.)
Analysis
Here, Plaintiff served Defendant with Form Interrogatories — Unlawful Detainer (Set One) and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set One) on October 23, 2022. (Isaacs Decls., ¶ 4, Exs. A.) After receiving no timely response, Plaintiff inquired with defense counsel via email, but received no response. (Id., ¶ 5, Ex. B.) As Defendant failed to respond at all, the motions are GRANTED. Responses are due within 10 days without objection.
Sanctions
Monetary sanctions are mandatory, unless the imposition of sanctions would be unjust or the party subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification. (E.g., CCP § 2030.290(c).) Defendant failed to respond and therefore failed to justify their non-response to the discovery.
Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,465.00 as to the Form Interrogatories and $1,765.00 as to the Request for Production, which accounts for 2 hours of drafting and preparing the motions at issue, an anticipated 1 hour reviewing opposition to the motions, and an anticipated 2 hours for appearance at the hearing at a rate of $350.00 per hour, a $60 filing fee, and $15 parking charge.
However, there were no oppositions, and thus no need to review any opposition or reply. Further, the fees are duplicative with the other pending motions. The other motions are substantially identical to these motions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $410.00 per motion, inclusive of costs, against Defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally. Sanctions in the total amount of $810 to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days.