SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Franco Tapia ("Plaintiff”) propounded form interrogatories, set one, on defendant Anthony Clark Chavis, Jr. aka Anthony C. Chaves (“Chavis”) on June 30, 2022. (Mot. McGlynn Decl. ¶ 2; Exh. A.) After receiving no response, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel in March 2023, but the motion was taken off-calendar pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, in which defense counsel agreed to diligently produce responses in a reasonable time. (Id. at ¶ 4.) On December 1, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer email regarding the outstanding responses. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Defense counsel stated difficulties locating defendant Chavis. (Ibid.) On December 26, 2023, the parties stipulated to a trial continuance due to Plaintiff’s previous counsel passing away, and to allow current counsel time to review the file. (Id. at ¶ 7.) To date, Plaintiff has not received a response to the outstanding discovery. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling defendant Chavis to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.  

Although untimely, the Court will exercise its discretion and consider the opposition. Defense counsel avers that they have attempted to re-establish contact with Chavis for over two years to no avail. (Opp. Araujo Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Defense counsel believes Chavis may be residing outside of California. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Defense counsel requests no sanctions be awarded, and for further time to locate Chavis. 

In reply, Plaintiff avers that even if they are unable to locate Chavis, Chavis may not ignore his discovery obligations, and sanctions are warranted. 

 
II. MOTION TO COMPEL 

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., §§ 2030.290; 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., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)  

Defense counsel has been unable to locate Chavis in the past two years, and there is no indication of when, if ever, Chavis will participate in this matter. Although the Court is sympathetic to defense counsel’s inability to reach Chavis despite the efforts made, litigation is not halted due to Chavis’ absence. Chavis’ silence is not substantial justification to shirk his discovery obligations.  

Therefore, because the evidence shows Chavis was properly served with discovery and failed to timely respond, any objections have been waived. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.  

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

 

III. SANCTIONS 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response, unless a court makes certain findings.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)¿ Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,531.22 for the motion against Chavis and his counsel. Given that Plaintiff is clearly informed that Chavis’ counsel is unable to contact Chavis, Plaintiff is on notice that the Court will not impose any sanctions against defense counsel absent direct evidence that counsel in fact is able to contact Chavis. Although sanctions are warranted, the amount requested is excessive and will be reduced. Plaintiff’s counsel includes in their calculation the time spent for a past motion to compel that was taken off-calendar. The Court will not grant retroactive monetary sanctions, especially for a motion that never proceeded.  

A court has discretion to award sanctions that are “suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks” but they should not be punitive in nature or levied for the purposes of punishing an offending party. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.)        

Plaintiff is awarded $400 total for the motion and to appear at the hearing as attorney’s fees. Further, Plaintiff is awarded one motion filing fee of $61.65 as costs.   

Sanctions are imposed against Defendant Chavis only. Defendant Chavis ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $461.65, within twenty (20) days. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: