SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Motions to Compel Discovery 

Defendant Kristen Hartwick (“Hartwick”) propounded set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”) on Plaintiffs Kyoung Jong Choi and Tae Hee Choi (“Plaintiffs”), separately, on March 16, 2023. On April 18, 2023, defense counsel granted a 30-day extension to Plaintiffs to provide responses. On May 19, 2023, defense counsel granted another 30-day extension. After receiving no responses to the propounded discovery, defense counsel emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not reply, and responses have not been served to date.  

Any opposition was due on or before September 18, 2023; none were filed. 

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, Defendant Hartwick’s unopposed motions are GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant Hartwick’s set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs without objections, within twenty (20) days. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).) 

 

II. Motion To Compel Statement of Damages 

When a complaint is filed in an action to recover damages for personal injury or wrongful death, the defendant may at any time request a statement setting forth the nature and amount of damages being sought. The request shall be served upon the plaintiff, who shall serve a responsive statement as to the damages within 15 days. In the event that a response is not served, the defendant, on notice to the plaintiff, may petition the court in which the action is pending to order the plaintiff to serve a responsive statement. (CCP § 425.11(b).) 

Here, Defendant Hartwick’s evidence shows that despite serving a request for statement of damages to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs failed to serve their Statement of Damages on Defendant Hartwick as provided for within CCP § 425.11. Accordingly, Defendant Hartwick’s motion is GRANTED.  Plaintiffs are ordered to serve Plaintiffs’ Statement of Damages on Defendant Hartwick within twenty (20) days.     

 

III. Sanctions 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless a court makes certain findings.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)¿ Plaintiffs did not file any opposition. However, sanctions may be awarded, even though no opposition was filed pursuant to CRC 3.1348(a). Defendant Hartwick is awarded the $460 sought for attorney’s fees and the motion filing fee.  

 Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel, jointly and severally. Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant Hartwick, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $460, within twenty (20) days. 

 

IV. Additional Filing Fee  

The Court notes that Defendant Hartwick filed a single motion for what should have been four separate motions as to the motions to compel set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, RPDs, and Statement of Damages. Combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Thus, Defendant Hartwick is ordered to pay three additional filing fees. This ruling will only be final upon proof of payment of the filing fees. 

 

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.