Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 23SMCV03409, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV03409, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03409 Hearing Date: August 14, 2024 Dept: M

CASE NO.: 23SMCV03409

MOTION: Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses

HEARING DATE: 8/14/2024

Legal Standard

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.)

Where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure (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.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff William Campoy moves to compel Defendant Steven Alan Pritz to provide initial discovery responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s first sets of discovery, including Requests for Production of Documents, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories. Plaintiff also requests sanctions of $860.00 per motion for reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees in making each motion.

Plaintiff served the subject discovery via email on May 6, 2024. (Gotfredson Decls., Exs. A-B.) Defendant has not provided any responses to the outstanding discovery requests. (Id., ¶6.) Plaintiff thereby demonstrates that he is entitled to responses from Defendant.

Defendant opposes, arguing that the motion should not be granted because there is a pending notice of related case, that there are unspecified “jurisdictional issues” with this action, and that there is a pending motion to stay the proceedings. These points are irrelevant to the outcome of the motion. Defendant does not contest that this action is currently pending, that this court has jurisdiction over the parties, and that he failed to respond to properly served discovery requests. As such, the motions must be granted.

Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to respond within 10 days, without objection, to the outstanding discovery identified above. Mandatory sanctions are imposed in the noticed amount of $860.00 per motion (total $2,580.00). Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days.