Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 23SMCV04996, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV04996, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04996 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: M

CASE NO.: 23SMCV04996

MOTION: Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses

HEARING DATE: 7/12/2024

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 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

Defendant, Carol Garcia moves to compel Plaintiff Farshid Nikfarjam to respond, without objections, to Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set No. One (collectively, the “Subject Discovery”), within fifteen (15) days.

This action concerns personal injuries and damage from an automobile accident that occurred on October 25, 2021. Defendant propounded the Subject Discovery by mail on January 19, 2024. Plaintiff did not serve responses within the original due date of February 21, 2024. (Saakian Decl., Exs. A.) On April 16, 2024, Defendant informed Plaintiff of their intent to move to compel. (See Id., Exs. B.)

Defendant demonstrates that Plaintiff has failed to respond to duly issued discovery. Accordingly, the motions to compel are GRANTED. Further responses are due within 10 days without objection.

SANCTIONS

Sanctions are mandatory. The Court must sanction any party that unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response, “unless it 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 has failed to oppose, and therefore failed to justify their failure to respond.

Defendant requests sanctions of $1,760.00, $760.00, and $760.00 for the respective motions to compel. (See Saakian Decl., ¶ 5.) Using the lodestar method, and considering the duplicative nature of the three motions, the Court finds that a reasonable sanction for the three motions would be $2,280.00, inclusive of costs, which is $760.00 a motion. Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, Matt Kahoonim, jointly and severally.

Sanctions are payable within 30 days.