Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV08796, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08796    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: 29

Rachael Malloy v. Brooke Bartholomay

Wednesday, September 7, 2022 

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Rachael Malloy’s motion to compel Defendant to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant Brooke Bartholomay is ordered to provide verified responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

Defendant Brooke Bartholomay and counsel of record, Stephen C. Pasarow, Esq. are also ordered to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $700 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 August 17, 2021, Plaintiff served Defendant with Form Interrogatories, Set One. (Hobbs Decl., ¶ 3; Exh. A.) On May 24, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel sent correspondence to defense counsel inquiring about the past due discovery responses. However, Defense counsel did not respond. On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel followed up on the status of the past due responses. Again, defense counsel did not response. To date, no responses to the discovery were provided. (Id., ¶¶ 4-7.)

As Plaintiff properly served discovery requests and Defendant failed to serve responses, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to a court order directing Defendant to provide verified responses without objections to the discovery requests served on Defendant.  Therefore, the motion is granted.

As the motion is granted, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also granted, but in a reduced amount due to the simplicity of the motion, and because there is no opposition. Thus, the Court imposes sanctions in the amount of $700 ($350 per hour x 2 hours) against Defendant and counsel of record, Stephen C. Pasarow, Esq., jointly and severally, to be paid within 30 days.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant Brooke Bartholomay is ordered to provide verified responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

Defendant Brooke Bartholomay and counsel of record, Stephen C. Pasarow, Esq. are also ordered to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $700 within 30 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.