SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

Plaintiff Harry Lane (“Plaintiff”) propounded form interrogatories, set one, on Defendant Whaler, LLC (“Defendant”) on June 26, 2023. (Mot. Shapiro Decl. ¶ 4; Exh. A.) After receiving no responses, Plaintiff’s counsel sent meet and confer correspondences to defense counsel on August 4, 2023 and on August 16, 2023. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.) On August 16, 2023, defense counsel requested a 3 week extension to provide responses, and Plaintiff’s counsel granted the extension request with the new deadline being September 6, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 7.)  However, no responses were provided within the extended deadline. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Another extension was granted up to October 13, 2023, and as of the date of the filing of the motion, Defendant has not provided responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-12.) Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Defendant to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.  

As opposed to an opposition, on November 21, 2023, Defendant filed the declarations of its counsel, Nancy Matthews Garber (“Garber”) and Abraham Berger (“Berger”).  

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).) 

Garber declares due to mistake, inadvertence and neglect of counsel and staff, responses were not timely provided because of office organizational transitions, wherein there were significant changes in support staff, paralegals, and the retirement of the attorney who had responsibility for handling the file. (Garber Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) As a result, the response date for discovery was lost track of, and the task was mistakenly marked as completed. (Id. at ¶7-8.) Garber avers defense counsel is working diligently to provide responses. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Additionally, Berger, the current handling defense attorney on this matter, declares that he has communicated to Plaintiff’s counsel that Defendant will respond to the outstanding discovery, without objections, and requested thirty days to provide responses. (Berger Decl. ¶ 5.) However, Plaintiff’s counsel declined to allow any additional time. (Id. at ¶ 6.) 

The evidence shows Defendant properly served with discovery and failed to respond. Plaintiff is under no obligation to provide further extensions in time. However, regardless of the reasons for the neglect, Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated they are apprised of the issue and are willing to participate in the discovery process. As such, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED, but the request for monetary sanctions is DENIED at this time.  

 

Defendant Whaler, LLC is ordered to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, set one, without objections, within thirty (30) days. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b).)