Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV41031, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41031    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Elizabeth Sunu’s motion to compel Defendant Guerrero to respond to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant Gregorio Guerrero is ordered to provide verified responses without objections within 30 days of this order. Moreover, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted. Defendant Gregorio Guerrero is ordered to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $360 within 30 days of this order. Lastly, Plaintiff is ordered to pay a $60 filing fee as she has improperly filed only one motion for two requests to compel discovery.

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 7, 2022, Plaintiff propounded discovery requests on Defendant Guerrero, Special and Form Interrogatories. (Seeman Decl., Ex. A). As of the filing of this motion, Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s request for discovery. (Id.)

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. The Court imposes sanctions in the amount of $660 ($600 per hour x 1 hour, plus $60 in filing fees) in favor of Plaintiff Elizabeth Sunu and against Defendant Guerrero to be paid within 30 days of this order. Further, Plaintiff is ordered to pay a $60 filing fee as she has improperly filed only one motion for two requests to compel discovery.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Guerrero to respond to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant Gregorio Guerrero is ordered to provide verified responses without objections within 30 days of this order. Moreover, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted. Defendant Gregorio Guerrero is ordered to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $360 within 30 days of this order. Lastly, Plaintiff is ordered to pay a $60 filing fee as she has improperly filed only one motion for two requests to compel discovery.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.