Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2021-01227912, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Please Note: The hearing on this matter is scheduled for 8:30 A.M.

Motion to Compel

Defendant Saks & Company LLC’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Javon Moses is ORDERED to serve full, complete, and verified responses to Defendant Saks & Company LLC’s special interrogatories (set one) without objections within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling.

Plaintiff Javon Moses is ORDERED to pay Defendant Saks & Company sanctions in the amount of $710 within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling.

Defendant Saks & Company LLC (erroneously sued as Saks Fifth Avenue) moves to compel responses to special interrogatories (set one) propounded on Plaintiff Javon Moses.

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, 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

In addition, “[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).)

Defendant served Plaintiff with special interrogatories (set one) on 02/04/2022. Plaintiff failed to provide any responses and Defendant sent a meet and confer letter on 08/05/2022. In the letter, Defendant requested verified and objection free responses, and also warned Plaintiff that Defendant would file motion to compel if Plaintiff failed to respond.

Despite all this, Plaintiff failed to serve responses to the special interrogatories (set one) and also did not oppose the instant motion to compel. The court must grant the motion to compel.

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).)

In this case, Plaintiff has not provided substantial justification for his failure to respond or pointed to any circumstances that would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. The court therefore must grant Defendant’s request for sanctions.

Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.