Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 22CHCV00840, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CHCV00840¿ Hearing Date: March 1, 2023 Dept: F51
Dept. F-51¿¿
Date: 3/1/23¿
Case
#22CHCV00840¿
¿¿ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
RESPONSES
(Form Interrogatories, Set One)
Motion Filed: 1/17/23
MOVING PARTY: Defendant
Town Ridge Homes Association (“Defendant”)¿
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff
Aric Cho, in pro per (“Plaintiff”)¿
NOTICE: OK¿
¿
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff to serve responses
to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. Defendant further requests that
the Court order monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $760.00.
¿
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to
serve responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One within 20 days.
The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $100.00.
¿
BACKGROUND¿
Plaintiff
alleges that he was injured as a result of a dangerous condition on property
associated with Defendant, a homeowners association.
On
10/11/22, Plaintiff filed his complaint, alleging against Defendant the sole
cause of action for dangerous condition on property.
On
11/16/22, Defendant served Plaintiff with its Form Interrogatories, Set One. No responses have been served
by Plaintiff to date. On 1/17/23, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel
Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. On 2/17/23,
Plaintiff filed his opposition.[1]
On 2/21/23, Defendant filed its reply.
ANALYSIS
Legal Standard
Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its form
interrogatories, asserting 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 Defendant served its interrogatories on Plaintiff by mail
and email on 11/16/22, the deadline for Plaintiff to respond was 12/21/22.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260, subd. (a).) To date,
Plaintiff has failed to serve any responses. (Decl. of Adam Byrne, ¶ 5.)
On 12/25/22, Plaintiff indicated to Defendant, via email,
that he would not respond to the interrogatories. (Ex. B to Byrne Decl.) Therefore,
as Plaintiff has failed to timely serve any responses to Defendant’s
interrogatories, Plaintiff has consequently waived any objections thereto.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (a).)
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendant’s motion
to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s 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).) Additionally, “the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering
that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney
advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including
attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ.
Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).)
Here, Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the total
amount of $760.00 to be imposed on Plaintiff. This amount includes 4 hours of
Defendant’s attorney’s time spent working on this motion, at his hourly billing
rate of $175.00 per hour, and a filing fee of $60.00. (Byrne Decl., ¶ 6.)
In granting the instant motion, the Court finds it
reasonable to award Defendant sanctions against Plaintiff, a self-represented
litigant, in the amount of $100.00. If Plaintiff fails to obey this order
compelling his response to Defendant’s 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 Defendant’s Form
Interrogatories, Set One within 20 days. The Court imposes sanctions against
Plaintiff in the amount of $100.00.
[1]
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s opposition was untimely filed. (Code Civ.
Proc. § 1005, subd. (b).)