Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 20CHCV00398, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20CHCV00398 Hearing Date: January 30, 2023 Dept: F51
Dept. F-51
Date: 1/30/23 TRIAL
DATE: 2/6/23
Case #20CHCV00398
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
(Form Interrogatories
and Special Interrogatories, Set One)
Motion Filed: 11/16/22
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Marc H. Berry, in pro per (“Plaintiff”)
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Heidi Downen, in pro per
(“Defendant”)
NOTICE: OK
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant to
serve responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories,
Set One. Plaintiff further requests that the Court order monetary sanctions
against Defendant in the amount of $1,280.00.
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Defendant is
ordered to serve responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Special
Interrogatories, Set One within 20 days. The Court imposes sanctions against
Plaintiff in the amount of $500.00.
Plaintiff is 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 Plaintiff, who was Defendant’s former family law attorney,
suing for breach of contract regarding payment of fees. On 7/9/20, Plaintiff
filed his action against Defendant for Breach of Contract and Common Counts. On
10/23/20, Defendant filed her general denial.
On 5/9/22, Plaintiff served Defendant
with his first set of Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories. Despite
meet and confer efforts between the party, no responses have been served by
Defendant.
On 11/16/22, Plaintiff filed
the instant motion to compel Defendant’s responses to his Form Interrogatories
and Special Interrogatories, Set One. No opposition has been filed to date.
ANALYSIS
Legal Standard
Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s responses to his
interrogatories, asserting that Defendant 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).) The deadline to respond is extended
by 10 calendar days if the mailing address is outside the State of California,
but within the United States. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1013, 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 Plaintiff served his interrogatories
on Defendant by mailing the requests to her address located in Tennessee on 5/9/22,
the deadline for Defendant to respond was 6/18/22. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260, subd. (a).)
Plaintiff agree to extend the deadline for Defendant to respond to 11/10/22.
(Decl. of Marc H. Berry, ¶
3.) As of that date, Defendant failed to
serve any responses. (Id. at ¶
4.)
On 11/10/22, Defendant indicated to
Plaintiff, via email, that she would not respond to the interrogatories. (Ex. F
to Berry Decl.) However, Defendant’s objections were not properly made within a
code-compliant response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories. (Code Civ Proc. § 2030.210, subds.
(a)–(c.).) Moreover, as Defendant failed to timely serve any responses to Plaintiff’s
interrogatories, Defendant has consequently waived any objections thereto. (Code
Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (a).)
Based on the foregoing, the Court
grants Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant to serve her responses
to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, Set One. The
Court notes that this motion is being heard 7 calendar days before the trial
date, which exceeds the discovery and motion cutoff dates set forth in Code of
Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (a).
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, Plaintiff requests monetary
sanctions in the total amount of $1,280.00 to be imposed on Defendant. This
amount includes 2 hours of Plaintiff’s time spent working on this motion, at
his hourly billing rate of $475.00 per hour, and 2 hours of his paralegal’s
time at an hourly rate of $165.00 per hour. (Berry Decl., ¶ 15.)
In granting the instant motion, the
Court finds it reasonable to award Plaintiff sanctions against Defendant in the
amount of $500.00. If
Defendant fails to obey this order compelling her response to Plaintiff’s Form
Interrogatories and Special 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. Defendant is ordered to serve
responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, Set
One within 20 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount
of $500.00.