Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2022-01243051, Date: 2022-11-14 Tentative Ruling

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

Motions to Compel

Defendant Jesse Raymond Agbulos’ motion to compel responses to form interrogatories (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and requests for production of documents (set one) are GRANTED.

Plaintiff Keelah Caprice Hayes is ORDERED to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant Jesse Raymond Agbulos’ form interrogatories (set one) within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling.

Plaintiff Keelah Caprice Hayes is ORDERED to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant Jesse Raymond Agbulos’ special interrogatories (set one) within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling.

Plaintiff Keelah Caprice Hayes is ORDERED provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant Jesse Raymond Agbulos’ requests for the production of documents (set one) and to produce all responsive documents within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling.

Plaintiff Keelah Caprice Hayes is ORDERED to pay sanctions to Defendant Jesse Raymond Agbulos in the amount of $1,380 within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling.

Defendant Jesse Raymond Agbulos moves to compel Plaintiff Keelah Caprice Hayes to serve responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and requests for production of documents (set one).

Compelling Responses to Interrogatories

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, “[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).)

Compelling Responses to Requests for Production

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).)

Further, “[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).)

Discovery Responses

On 4/13/2022, Defendant served on Plaintiff form interrogatories (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and requests for production of documents (set one). Responses to the interrogatories and requests for production of documents were due 30 days after service (plus additional days depending on the method of service). (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260 & 2031.260.)

Plaintiff requested extensions of the deadline to serve responses and Defendant granted 4 extensions. However, Plaintiff has not served any responses to Defendant’s discovery requests nor has Plaintiff filed an opposition to these motions to compel. Defendant is therefore entitled to an order compelling responses without objection.

Discovery Sanctions on Motion to Compel Responses

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).)

Plaintiff has not provided any justification for their failure to act or pointed to any circumstances that would make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Further, Defendant’s request for total sanctions of $1,380 is reasonable and the court will order said sanctions. (fn.1.)

Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.

(fn.1) The court notes that the proofs of service attached to the motions to compel are not code compliant as they do not contain the electronic service address of the person making the electronic service. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1013b, subd. (b) [party serving by electronic service must include in proof of service “[t]he electronic service address . . . of the person making the electronic service”].) This does not appear to have caused any actual prejudice as Plaintiff does not claim that they were not able to contact the person making the electronic service. However, Defendant should change the form of the proofs of service in the future to ensure that they are code compliant.