Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV17946, Date: 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV17946 Hearing Date: April 7, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff Eduardo Reyes’ motions to compel
verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and
request for production of documents are GRANTED.
Defendant Jesus Panameno Vela is ordered to provide verified responses to the request for
discovery within 30 days of this order.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is
GRANTED.
Defendant Jesus Panameno Vela and counsel of record Byron M.
Purchell are ordered to
pay sanctions in the amount of $760, jointly and severally, within 30 days of
this order.
Plaintiff is
ordered to pay $120 in filing fees.
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 November 16, 2021, Plaintiff propounded Form
Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for
Production of Documents, Set One, on Defendant Panameno Vela. (Williamson
Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Responses were due on December 19, 2022. To date, Defendant
has failed to provide any responses to Plaintiff’s request for discovery. Plaintiff
inquired twice, but both efforts were ignored. (Id., ¶ 3; Exh. B.)
The Court observes that in opposition to
Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted, which was heard on
November 18, 2022, defense counsel stated that his father was recently
diagnosed with cancer and passed away. Subsequently, he was on bereavement
leave and he had just returned to work. (Purcell Decl., ¶
6.) Further, in the Court’s 10/5/2022 Minute Order, defense counsel represented
that he served the discovery responses, but that appears to be the discovery
responses to the motion to deem requests for admissions admitted. Defense
counsel has not filed an opposition to this motion, and it does not appear he
has served the responses to these requests for discovery. Therefore, as Plaintiff
has properly served the discovery requests, and Defendant has not provided any
responses, the motions to compel Defendant’s responses are granted. The Court
finds Plaintiff is entitled to a court order directing Defendant to serve verified
responses without objections to the discovery requests.
As the motions are granted, Plaintiff’s
request for sanctions is also granted. While defense counsel’s declaration
explaining the result for the failure to respond ordinarily would have provided
substantial justification for the failure to respond to the discovery, the
Court observes that the declaration was filed in October of 2022, and six
months have now passed. As such, there is no longer substantial justification
in failing to respond to the discovery. Nevertheless, the Court will award
sanctions in a reduced amount due to the simplicity of the motion and the
concurrent nature of the facts. Thus, the Court imposes sanctions against
Defendant and counsel of record Byron M. Purcell in the amount of $760 ($700 an
hour for 1 hour, plus $60 in filing fees.)
However, Plaintiff has only filed one
motion for three sets of discovery. As a result, Plaintiff is ordered to pay
$120 in filing fees.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel
verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and
request for production of documents are GRANTED.
Defendant Jesus Panameno Vela is ordered to provide verified responses to the request for
discovery within 30 days of this order.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is
GRANTED.
Defendant Jesus Panameno Vela and counsel of record Byron M.
Purchell are ordered to
pay sanctions in the amount of $760, jointly and severally, within 30 days of
this order.
Plaintiff is ordered
to pay $120 in filing fees.
Moving party is
ordered to give notice.