Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 19TRCV00282, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19TRCV00282 Hearing Date: January 19, 2023 Dept: F51
Dept. F-51
Date: 1/19/23 TRIAL DATE: 6/12/23
Case #19TRCV00282
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
(Form Interrogatories, Set One)
Motion Filed: 12/22/22
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Jeffrey Kentner and Greenwolf Builders (collectively, “Defendants”)
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Alexandar Cvetkovich
NOTICE: OK
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff to serve responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set One. Defendants further request that the Court order monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $3,500.00.
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set One within 20 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.00.
The parties are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.
BACKGROUND
This is an action by the owner of a condominium unit against the homeowners’ association (HOA), the HOA’s counsel, and others, including moving Defendants. Moving defendant Greenwolf Builders is a contractor hired by the HOA, and moving defendant Kentner is its principal. The operative Second Amended Complaint, filed on 9/9/20, contains the following causes of action: (1) breach of governing documents, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) breach of written contract, (4) breach of Davis Stirling Act, (5) discrimination in violation of FEHA and Unruh Civil Rights Act, (6) RICO Conspiracy, (7) unfair debt collection practice, (8) fraud, (9) negligence, (10) nuisance, (11) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (12) injunctive relief, (13) declaratory relief, (14) malicious prosecution and (15) accounting.
On 10/8/22, Defendants served Plaintiff with its first set of Form Interrogatories and Requests for Admission. On 10/10/22, Plaintiff served Defendants with his second set of Form Interrogatories and Requests for Admission, to which Defendants responded on 11/9/22. On 11/10/22, Plaintiff served his responses to Defendants’ Requests for Admission, Set One.
On 12/22/22, Defendants filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to their Form Interrogatoris, Set One. No opposition has been filed to date.
ANALYSIS
Legal Standard
Here, Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff’s responses to their form interrogatories, arguing that Plaintiff failed to respond the discovery requests as required by statute. “The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: (1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered; (2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings; or (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.” (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) “In the first paragraph of the response immediately below the title of the case, there shall appear the identity of the responding party, the set number, and the identity of the propounding party.” (Id., subd. (b).) “Each answer, exercise of option, or objection in the response shall bear the same identifying number or letter and be in the same sequence as the corresponding interrogatory.” (Id., subd. (c).)
A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to interrogatories if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2030.260, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “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” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (a).)
As Defendants served their discovery request on 10/8/22, the deadline for Plaintiff to respond was 11/9/22. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260, subd. (a).) As of that date, Plaintiff failed to serve any responses. (Decl. of M. Toney Smith, ¶ 7.) On 11/10/23, Plaintiff (via an individual named Robert Malmut) objected to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, on the basis that “they are meant for auto accident and was served defective.” (Ex. C to Smith Decl.)
However, these objections were not properly made within a code-compliant response to Defendants’ form interrogatories. (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.210, subds. (a)–(c.).) Moreover, as Plaintiff failed to timely serve his responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, Plaintiff has consequently waived any objections thereto. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (a).)
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendants’ unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff to serve his responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set One.
Sanctions
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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).) “The 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).)
Here, Defendants request monetary sanctions in the total amount of $3,500.00 to be imposed on Plaintiff. This amount includes 7 hours of Defendants’ attorney’s time spent working on this motion, at his hourly billing rate of $500.00 per hour. (Smith Decl., ¶ 13.)
In granting the instant motion, the Court finds it reasonable to award Defendants sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.00. If Plaintiff fails to obey this order compelling his response to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, the Court may make any additional orders that are just, including the imposition of a monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (c).)
CONCLUSION
The motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set One within 20 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.00.