SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Defendant Shawn Shepherd (“Defendant”) propounded on Plaintiffs Adela Sanchez (“Sanchez”) and Andrea Barrios (“Barrios”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) each a separate set of (1) form interrogatories, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, on November 2, 2023. Responses were initially due on December 5, 2023. After receiving no responses, defense counsel sent email correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting status of the discovery. Defendant granted Plaintiffs an extension to respond to discovery by December 21, 2023. However, to date, Plaintiffs have failed to serve responses. Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiffs to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.  

Any opposition was due on or before April 9, 2024. Plaintiffs filed untimely oppositions on April 17, 2024, which the Court will not consider.  

 

II. MOTIONS TO COMPEL 

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 by Defendant and failed to timely respond, any objections have been waived. Defendant’s motions are GRANTED.  

Plaintiffs are ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant’s (1) form interrogatories, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) RFPs, set one, without objections, within twenty (20) days. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(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).)¿ Plaintiffs filed an untimely opposition.  

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 one hour for each motion to compel, and one hour to appear at the hearing (awarded only once), at the requested rate of $230 per hour for a total of $940 in attorney’s fees. Further, Defendant is awarded four motion filing fees of $60, for a total of $240 as costs.       

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel, jointly and severally. Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,180, within twenty (20) days. 

 

IV. ADDITIONAL FILING FEE¿ 

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 for Sanchez and Barrios. 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 is ordered to pay two additional filing fees. This ruling will be final only upon proof of payment of the filing fees. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.