Judge: Nathan Nhan Vu, Case: 30-2022-01278972, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling
Motions to Compel Discovery
Defendants Commodity Transporters, Inc.’s; CT Logistics, Inc.’s; Cal West Commodities, Inc.’s; and Michael Devon Toole’s Motions to Compel Responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) are GRANTED.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Amelia Lopez serve full, complete, and verified responses to Defendants Commodity Transporters, Inc.’s; CT Logistics, Inc.’s; Cal West Commodities, Inc.’s; and Michael Devon Toole’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) without objections and within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling.
The court ORDERS that Plaintiff Amelia Lopez pay to Defendants Commodity Transporters, Inc.; CT Logistics, Inc.; Cal West Commodities, Inc.; and Michael Devon Toole sanctions in the total amount of $660.00 per motion (3.0 hours x $200 per hour in reasonable attorney’s fees and $60 for the motion filing fee) for a total of $1,980 within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling.
Defendants Commodity Transporters, Inc.; CT Logistics, Inc.; Cal West Commodities, Inc.; and Michael Devon Toole (collectively, Defendants) move to compel Plaintiff Amelia Lopez to provide responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One); and Request for Production of Documents (Set One).
Compelling Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production
When a party properly propounds interrogatories and the party receiving the interrogatories fails to respond, “[t]he party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)
Further, when the party receiving the discovery requests fails to respond, the propounding party is not required to file a meet and confer declaration prior to filing its motion to compel, and there is no time limit for the propounding party to file its motion. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)
In addition, when a party properly propounds requests for production and the party receiving the requests fails to respond, “[t]he party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)
Similarly, “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)
Similarly, “[t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)
Defendants have presented evidence that they served Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) on Plaintiff on January 5, 2023. (Form Interrogatory Declaration of Mary M. Campo (“Campo Form Rog Decl.”) ¶ 3, Exh. A; Special Interrogatory Declaration of Mary M. Campo (“Campo Special Rog Decl.”) ¶ 3, Exh. A; Request for Production Declaration of Mary M. Campo (“Campo RFP Decl.”) ¶ 3, Exh. A.)
Plaintiff has not served responses to any of the above discovery requests, even though Defendants’ attempted to meet and confer. (See Campo Form Rog Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6; Campo Special Rog Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6; Campo RFP Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6.)
In addition, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the instant motions to compel and has therefore waived any arguments in opposition. (See Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 288 [failure to address or oppose an issue in motion constitutes a waiver on that issue; Wright v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 998, 1011 [“it is clear that a defendant may waive the right to raise an issue on appeal by failing to raise the issue in the pleadings or in opposition to a . . . motion”].)
The court therefore will grant the motions to compel.
Sanctions
The Civil Procedure Code requires the court to impose monetary sanctions against a party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)
California Rules of Court rule 3.1348(a) further provides that “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).
Plaintiff does not provide substantial justification nor does she point to any other circumstances that would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. The court must grant sanctions in the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees for Defendants.
However, the motions were substantially similar so that the number of hours reasonably required to prepare them should be reduced slightly. In addition, counsel will appear at the same hearing for all the motions so that it is not necessary to set aside separate time to argue each motion.
Defendants shall give notice of this ruling.