Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV04493, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV04493    Hearing Date: December 10, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Heller v. Bosilic, et al.

CASE NO.:                24SMCV04493

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses

HEARING DATE:   12/10/2024

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 

Plaintiff Richard A. Heller moves to compel Defendant Andrea Bosilic’s initial answers, without objection, to Form Interrogatories – Unlawful Detainer (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) as well as the production of documents. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the noticed amounts of $2,475.77 and $1,275.77, respectively, against Bosilic and her counsel of record, Michael A. Bowse/Bowse Law Group.

On October 31, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with the subject discovery. (Isaacs Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) On November 7, 2024, Defendant served unverified responses that were patently incomplete. (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. B.) Following meet and confer efforts, Defendant indicated that they would serve verified supplemental responses but failed to do so. (¶ 5.) Thus, Defendant failed to provide any response at all to the form interrogatories or the request for production. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 636 [“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”].) 

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Sanctions are imposed in the reduced total amount of $1,751.54, inclusive of costs, against defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally. Sanctions are payable within 30 days.

Responses are ordered within 5 days.