Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV42734, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42734    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: 29

Griselda D. G. Meza v. Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc.

Wednesday, September 7, 2022 

TENTATIVE

Defendant Vallarta Food Enterprises’ motions to compel verified responses to form interrogatories (set one and two), special interrogatories (set one), and request for production of documents (set one) are GRANTED. Plaintiff Griselda Meza is ordered to provide verified responses to the request for discovery within 30 days of this order. Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff Griselda Meza and counsel of record Joseph S. Nourmand, Esq., jointly and severally, in the amount of $550, to be paid 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.)

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 December 27, 2021, Defendant served Form Interrogatories (Set One and Set Two), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One), on Plaintiff. (Derossi Decl., ¶ 1; Exhs. A-B.) Responses were due on January 31, 2022. (Id., ¶ 2.) On February 22, 2022, after receiving no responses, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff, requesting responses to the discovery propounded by Defendant and provided ten additional days to respond. (Id., ¶ 3; Exh. C.) No response was received. (Id., ¶ 4.)

As Defendant has properly served the discovery requests, and Plaintiff has not provided any responses, the motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses are granted. The Court finds Defendant is entitled to a court order directing Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to the discovery requests.

As the motions are granted, Defendant’s requests for sanctions are also granted, but in a reduced amount due to the simplicity of the motions and the concurrent nature of the facts. Thus, the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff Griselda Meza and counsel of record Joseph S. Nourmand, Esq. in the amount of $550 ($185 per hour x 2 hours, plus $180 in filing fees), jointly and severally, to be paid within 30 days of this order.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to compel verified responses to form interrogatories (set one and two), special interrogatories (set one), and request for production of documents (set one) are GRANTED. Plaintiff Griselda Meza is ordered to provide verified responses to the request for discovery within 30 days of this order. Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff Griselda Meza and counsel of record Joseph S. Nourmand, Esq., jointly and severally, in the amount of $550, to be paid within 30 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.