Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21SMCV01916, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01916    Hearing Date: October 15, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

            This case arises from a dispute concerning an unlawful detainer.  The Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff SM 10000 Property LLC (“Plaintiff”) on March 2, 2022. 

            Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses from Defendant Paul Roberts (“Defendant”) to Requests for Production, Set 1 (“RPD”) and Special Interrogatories, Set 1 (“SROG”) regarding post-judgment discovery.  Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The motions are unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)-(b).)  

            Similarly, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it . . . [t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (a)-(b).)  

ANALYSIS

1.     Motions to Compel

Plaintiff electronically served the RPD and SROG on counsel for Defendant on April 12, 2023.  (Ishu Decl. ¶ 4 and Ex. 1.)  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by May 15, 2023.  As of the filing date of the motions, Plaintiff has not received any responses from Plaintiff to the RPD or SROG.  (Ishu Decl. ¶ 5.)  Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to serve timely responses to the RPD and SROG.

2.     Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in connection with the two motions.  The Court finds Defendant’s failure to timely respond to the RPD and SROG to be abuses of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).)  Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Defendant, in the amount of $1,100, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, and one hour to attend the hearing, at $275 per hour.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant’s responses to the RPD and SROG per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.  As such, the Court orders Defendant to serve verified responses to the RPD and SROG, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s order.

Further, the Court orders Defendant to pay monetary sanctions in the amount $1,100 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED:  October 15, 2024                                                   ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court