Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV01359, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01359    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           629 Palisades LLC v. Lappin, et al.

CASE NO.:                22SMCV01359

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses

HEARING DATE:   2/7/2023

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

            The motion is mooted by Plaintiff 629 Palisades LLC’s submission of code compliant responses. (See Barton Decl., Ex. A, B.) The only remaining issue is the imposition of mandatory sanctions.

            Monetary sanctions are mandatory unless the imposition of sanctions would be unjust or the party subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification. (CCP §§ 2030.290(c).) Plaintiff’s counsel submits that he had an ongoing medical issue, as well as two jury trials and a family vacation, which prevented him from timely responding. (See Id., ¶ 5.) This does not provide substantial justification for counsel’s failure to respond.

Defendants Steven Lappin and Pacific Cove Development request $735.00 and $1,165.00 in sanctions. (See Stanton Decls., ¶ 7.) Given the overlap between the motions, and the brevity of the reply papers, the Court finds that the requested amount is unreasonably high. Accordingly, MP’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $795.00, inclusive of costs, against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Nicholas Barton and Robert R. Shiri, jointly and severally. Sanctions to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days.