Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV26104, Date: 2022-09-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV26104    Hearing Date: September 2, 2022    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Denette Elizabeth Rael’s motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories are DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant Iman Rahimi and counsel of record Christopher J. Cummiskey, Esq. are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $120 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.)

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to compel responses to interrogatories 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).) 

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 January 30, 2022, Plaintiff propounded Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant Rahimi. (Saroian Decl., ¶ 3; Exh. A.) Defendant's verified responses were due on or before February 16, 2022. On February 18, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel, inquiring as to the discovery responses, but defense counsel did not respond. (Saroian Decl., ¶ 4). On February 25, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel again inquired as to the responses. (Id., ¶ 5.) On March 2, 2022, defense counsel responded, alleging that service was improper because it was also sent to another member of the firm, who was no longer working there. (Id., ¶ 6.) Defense counsel stated he was not involved on a day-to-day basis, and therefore was not authorized to accept service on this case. As of the date this Motion was filed, no responses have been served by Defendant. (Id.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that he has now served the discovery requests at issue, and thus, the motions are moot.

In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendant and his counsel served verified responses on April 5, 2022, but the responses contained objections.

As Defendant has provided verified responses to the discovery at issue, the Court finds the motion is moot. To the extent that Plaintiff argues Defendant’s responses improperly contain objections, the correct procedure would have been for Plaintiff to file a motion to compel further responses.  

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.¿ (Code Civ. Proc.,¿§ 2031.310(c) (emphasis added).) A motion to compel further¿must be filed within¿45¿days after service of the responses. An untimely motion waives the court’s right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc.,¿§¿2031.310(c);¿Standon Co. v Superior Court¿(1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 902.)¿ 

As to sanctions, Defendant has not provided any justification for the delay in serving responses in his motion. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted. Defendant Iman Rahimi and counsel of record Christopher J. Cummiskey, Esq. are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $120 within 30 days of this order.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories are DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant Iman Rahimi and counsel of record Christopher J. Cummiskey, Esq. are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $120 within 30 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.