SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Motions to Compel 

Defendant Platinum Security, Inc. ("Defendant”) propounded (1) form interrogatories, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, on Plaintiff Nico Quiros (“Plaintiff”) on August 17, 2022. Plaintiff’s responses were due on or before September 20, 2022. After granting Plaintiff two 30-day extensions on October 19, 2022, and then on November 4, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, which was heard and granted on January 18, 2023. On March 2, 2023, defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff in pro per. Plaintiff did not respond to the correspondence and has not served responses to date. Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.  

The instant motions were served on Plaintiff in pro per. The motions are unopposed. 

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 Plaintiff was properly served with discovery and failed to respond, Defendant’s motions are GRANTED.  

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant Platinum Security, Inc.’s form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and RPDs, set one, without objections, within thirty (30) 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 opposition. However, sanctions may be awarded, even though no opposition was filed, pursuant to CRC 3.1348(a). Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,005 for the motion.     

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.)     

Defendant is awarded 1 hour to prepare each motion at the requested rate of $210 per hour, for a total of $630 in attorney’s fees. Further, Defendant is awarded three motion filing fees of $60, for a total of $180 as costs.    

 

Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff.  Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $810, within thirty (30) days.