SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Motions to Compel¿ 

Defendant Aranzazu Itzel Rodriguez (“Defendant”) propounded (1) form interrogatories, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, separately on Christine Muriel Roldzak and Melissa Hernandez (“Plaintiffs”) on April 18, 2023. After granting Plaintiffs an extension up and until July 21, 2023 to serve responses, Plaintiffs have not served any responses to date. Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiffs to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.  

As of November 15, 2023, no opposition was filed.  

For a motion to compel initial 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; 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., § 2030.290, subd. (a); § 2031.300, subd. (a).)    

Therefore, because the evidence shows Plaintiffs were properly served with discovery and failed to respond, Defendant’s motions are GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant Aranzazu Itzel Rodriguez’s form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and RPDs, set one, without objections, within twenty (20) days. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).) 

 

II. 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 did not file any oppositions. However, sanctions may be awarded, even though no opposition was filed pursuant to CRC 3.1348(a). Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,355 for each motion.    

Defendant is awarded 1 hour to prepare each motion to compel and one hour to appear at the hearing- but is awarded this time only once- all at the requested rate of $120 per hour, for a total of $600 in attorney fees. Further, Defendant is awarded four motion filing fees of $60, for a total of $240, as costs. 

Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ attorney of record.  Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant Aranzazu Itzel Rodriguez, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $840, within twenty (20) days. 

 

III. Additional Filing Fees¿ 

The Court notes that Defendant filed a single motion for what should have been two separate motions as to the motions to compel form interrogatories and special interrogatories, set one. 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 Aranzazu Itzel Rodriguez is ordered to pay two additional filing fees. This ruling will be final upon proof of payment of the filing fees.