Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV45506, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV45506    Hearing Date: April 14, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Catherine Hafkenscheid’s unopposed motions to compel verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents are GRANTED. Plaintiff Cuthbert Johnson is ordered to provide verified responses to the request for discovery within 30 days of this order. Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff Cuthbert Johnson is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $584.95 within 30 days of this order.

Legal Standard

Compel Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905–906.)

Compel RPDs 

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.  There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. 

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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(c), 2031.300(c).)  

Under CCP section 2023.030(a), “[t]he 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. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) 

Discussion

On December 16, 2021, Defendant served on Plaintiff Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One). (Dagmy Decl., ¶ 3; Exs. A.) Plaintiff’s verified responses were due on January 20, 2022. Defendant sent Plaintiff meet and confer letters inquiring about the discovery responses. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 6.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not responded to the discovery. (Id., ¶ 7.)

In opposing, Plaintiff argues Plaintiff has supplied for the Defendant and filed with the Court a generous amount of information, primarily in hospital bills and a police report, for trial to proceed. Defendant indicates that it is entitled to discovery which Plaintiff does not dispute. However, there are necessary steps for Defendant counsel to achieve its discovery requests; one of which was for Plaintiff to actually come into their office, which, in this day of Covid, may be unrealistic.

Plaintiff’s opposition does not dispute that Defendant is entitled to discovery. As Defendant has properly served the discovery requests, and Plaintiff has not provided any responses, the motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses are granted. The Court finds Defendant is entitled to a court order directing Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to the discovery requests.

As the motions are granted, Defendant’s request for sanctions is also granted as Plaintiff has failed to offer any substantial justification for the failure to respond. However, the Court will reduce the amount in Defendant’s request, due to the simplicity of the motions and the concurrent nature of the facts. Thus, the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $584.95 ($200 per hour x 2 hours, plus $184.95 in filing fees, for 3 motions) to be paid within 30 days of this order.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant Catherine Hafkenscheid’s motions to compel verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents are GRANTED. Plaintiff Cuthbert Johnson is ordered to provide verified responses to the request for discovery within 30 days of this order. Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff Cuthbert Johnson is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $584.95 within 30 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.