Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC05836, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC05836    Hearing Date: May 3, 2023    Dept: 26

Llorens v. Lee

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Rachel Lee’s motions to compel are GRANTED. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $412.28.

ANALYSIS:

Defendant Rachel Lee moves to compel the responses of form interrogatories and request for inspection and production of documents, sets one, and for sanctions.

Discussion

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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) 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.)

Similarly, where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. (Ibid.) 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. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. (Contra Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1) [good cause requirement for motion to compel further responses].)

If a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for production is filed, the Court may impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Further, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Here, Defendant propounded the subject discovery on May 27, 2022, and after multiple extensions to provide responses, none were provided. Accordingly, the unopposed motions are GRANTED and sanctions are warranted. Defendant requests $352.28 per motion for 2 hours spent on each motion and 2 hours spent at the hearing at a rate of $146.14 per hour, and two $60 filing fees. The Court grants sanctions in the reduced amount of $412.28 total for 2 hours of time spent on the motions and the hearing at counsel’s rate, and the two filing fees.

Conclusion

Defendant Rachel Lee’s Motions are GRANTED. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $412.28.

Moving Party to give notice.