Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV01612, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV01612 Hearing Date: March 21, 2024 Dept: M
CASE NO.: 22SMCV01612
MOTION: Motion
to Compel Initial Discovery Responses
HEARING DATE: 3/20/2024
Legal
Standard
Where
there has been no timely response to a CCP 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
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Thomas
Compagna moves to compel Defendants Robert Leff and J. Peter Wakeman to provide
responses to their respective Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Requests
for Production of Documents, Set Two. Cross-Defendant requests sanctions
against Defendants and their counsel of record, Arthur Carvalho, Jr. and Lang,
Hanigan & Carvalho LLP, jointly and severally in the amount of $ 3,728.50.
Defendants/Cross-Complainants oppose, arguing that the motions should be denied
as to the SROGs against Leff, and moot as to the remaining issues.
As to the SROGs propounded on Leff, Leff
served a response on December 5, 2023. (Carvalho Decl., ¶13, Ex. 4.) In reply,
Campagna admits that Leff served responses prior to this motion being drafted
and served. The motion is therefore DENIED as to the Special Interrogatories,
Set Two, served on Leff.
As to the remaining discovery, the
Court concurs that the motions are moot. Defendants have served code compliant
responses as to the Requests for Production to Leff; Requests for Production to
Wakeman; and Special Interrogatories to Wakeman. (Exs. 1-3.) Plaintiff does not
dispute that the motions are moot. Plaintiff argues that sanctions are still
mandatory, given the responding parties failure to provide timely initial
responses. Thus, only the issue of sanctions remains.
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).) Here, Defendants
failed to respond and failed to justify their nonresponse in opposition.
Counsel for Defendants only notes that the failure to respond was inadvertent,
not intentional, and that Plaintiff’s counsel made no effort to contact him
regarding the outstanding discovery until filing this motion. (See Carvalho
Decl., ¶¶7-12.) While the Court appreciates counsel’s candor, this explanation
does not justify counsel’s failure to respond to the initial discovery requests.
That said, the declaration shows that sanctions should be imposed against Defendants’
counsel of record only.
Plaintiff requests $3,728.50 in
sanctions across both motions, accounting for 2.5 hours spent preparing the motions,
1 hour reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply, and 1 hour attending the
hearing, at a rate of $815.00 per hour, plus filing fees of $61 per motion. The
Court finds the requested fees unreasonably high, given the relative simplicity
of the motions. Further, Plaintiff’s mixed success on the merits of the motions
justifies a relatively lower sanction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for
sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $1,122.00, inclusive of
costs, against Defendants’ counsel of record, Arthur Carvalho, Jr. and Lang,
Hanigan & Carvalho LLP. Sanctions to be paid to counsel within 30 days.