SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Motions to Compel 

Defendant Nancy Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) propounded form interrogatories, set two, on Plaintiff Joselin Barrios (“Barrios”) on March 31, 2023, and special interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff Ada Mazariegos (“Mazariegos”) on March 28, 2023. Both Plaintiffs Barrios and Mazariegos (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are represented by the same counsel. After granting Plaintiffs an extension to serve responses, Plaintiffs have not served any responses. Plaintiffs did not oppose the motions.  

For a motion to compel discovery responses, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 906.) Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)   

Therefore, because the evidence shows Plaintiffs were properly served with discovery and failed to respond, and Plaintiffs have not demonstrated responses were served prior to the hearing in substantial compliance with the Discovery Act, Defendant Rodriguez’s motions are GRANTED.  

(1) Plaintiff Barrios is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant Rodriguez’s form interrogatories, set two, without objections, within fifteen (15) days (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b); and 

(2) Plaintiff Mazariegos is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant Rodriguez’s special interrogatories, set one, without objections, within fifteen (15) days. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b).) 

 

II. Sanctions 

Defendant Rodriguez requests sanctions in the amount of $374.25 for each motion to compel. However, requests for sanctions must be included in the Notice of motion and must (1) state the applicable rule that has been violated, (2) describe the specific conduct that is alleged to have violated the rule, and (3) identify the attorney, law firm, party, witness, or other person against whom sanctions are sought. Defendant Rodriguez’s Notice neither provides the applicable statute nor does she identify against whom sanctions are sought. The request for sanctions is DENIED.