Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV13511, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13511    Hearing Date: May 9, 2023    Dept: 31

TENTATIVE

Defendant WWG’s Unopposed Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s responses to Request for Production of Documents (RPD), Request for Admissions (RFA), Special Interrogatories (SROGS), and Form Interrogatories (FROGS) is GRANTED.

The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $3,200.00.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.010, 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)¿ A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)¿ Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.¿ (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)¿¿ 

¿ 

¿If a propounding party moves for and obtains a court order compelling a response, the court shall impose monetary sanctions against the party failing to timely respond to interrogatories and demands for inspection unless that party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.010, 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.28;¿Sinaiko¿Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.)¿ 

DISCUSSION

Motion to Compel Initial Discovery 

Defendant WWG filed four Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s responses to Request for Production of Documents (RPD), Request for Admissions (RFA), Special Interrogatories (SROGS), and Form Interrogatories (FROGS).

Plaintiff was originally served with discovery on August 29, 2021. (Jaidi Decl. ¶ 3.) Due to an error in the notice, Defendant again served discovery on Plaintiff on August 30, 2022. (Id., Ex. A.) Responses were due on September 30, 2022. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendant sent various meet and confer correspondence to Plaintiff but no discovery responses were provided. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendant asserts that based on Plaintiff’s Twitter postings, Plaintiff has no intention of responding to discovery. (Id., Ex. C, D.)

As no responses have been received, Defendant’s Motions to Compel responses to responses to RPD, RFA, SROGS, and FROGS is GRANTED.

Request for Sanctions 

Defendant’s notices of motions properly stated that sanctions are sought against Plaintiff Oliver B. Mitchell III. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)¿

Defense counsel’s hourly rate is $800.00 per hour. (Jaidi Decl. ¶ 9.) Defense counsel represents he/she spent 4.0 hours preparing and writing letters to Plaintiff and writing and researching each motion. (Id.) Defense counsel anticipates spending 2.0 hours reviewing and replying to any opposition and 2.0 hours appearing at the hearing for this motion.

Since the motions are not complex and remain unopposed the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $3,200.00 for 4.0 hours of work.

CONCLUSION

Defendant WWG’s Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s responses to Request for Production of Documents (RPD), Request for Admissions (RFA), Special Interrogatories (SROGS), and Form Interrogatories (FROGS) is GRANTED.

The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $3,200.00.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.