TENTATIVE

Defendants Michael Pourshalimi and Ester Pourshalimi’s motions to compel verified responses to supplemental request for production of documents (set one) is GRANTED. Plaintiff Elmer Lopez is ordered to provide full and complete verified answers to the outstanding discovery without objections within 30 days of this order.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff Elmer Lopez and counsel of record Hess D. Panah & Associates are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $420, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.

Legal Standard

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. 

A party may propound “a supplemental demand” to inspect, copy, test, or sample any later acquired or discovered documents, tangible things…. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.050.) 

Such supplemental demands may be made 1)¿twice¿prior to initial setting of a trial date, and 2) subject to the discovery “cut-off” date (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.010 et seq.), once¿after the initial setting of a trial date. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.050(b), 2030.070(b).) For good cause shown, the court may allow a party to propound¿additional¿supplemental demands for inspection. This allows for updating of previously requested information. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.050(c), 2030.070(b).) 

 Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to compel responses to 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. § 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 March 17, 2022, Defendants served supplemental interrogatories (set one) on Plaintiff. (LaScola Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. A.) Even though an additional period of time was provided to respond, Plaintiff has provided no responses to the written discovery.  (Id., ¶ 7.)

As Defendants properly served discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to a court order directing Plaintiff to provide full and complete answers to the outstanding discovery without objections. Therefore, the motion is granted. 

As the motions are granted, Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorney of record Hess D. Panah & Associates is granted but in a reduced amount due to the simplicity of the motion, for a total of $420 (2 hours at $210 per hour).

Conclusion

Defendants’ motions to compel verified responses to supplemental request for production of documents (set one) is GRANTED. Plaintiff Elmer Lopez is ordered to provide full and complete verified answers to the outstanding discovery without objections within 30 days of this order.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff Elmer Lopez and counsel of record Hess D. Panah & Associates are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $420, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.