Motions to Compel Responses to Request for Supplemental Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents and Supplemental Request for Production of Documents filed by Defendant Henrie Miguel Couderc

TENTATIVE

Defendant Henrie Miguel Couderc’s motions to compel verified responses to supplemental interrogatories (set two), requests for admissions (set one), form interrogatories (set two), special interrogatories (set two), and supplemental request for production of documents (set two) are GRANTED. Plaintiff Jocelyn Candell is ordered to provide full and complete answers without objections to the outstanding discovery within 30 days of this order.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff Jocelyn Candell and counsel of record Hess D. Panah & Associates are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $780.51, jointly and severally, 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).)

In addition to the limited number of interrogatories that may be propounded, a party may propound “a supplemental interrogatory” to obtain later-acquired information on¿matters covered¿by earlier interrogatories (but not on other topics). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070(a).) 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. 

A party may propound “a supplemental demand” to inspect, copy, test, or sample any later acquired or discovered documents, tangible things…. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.050.) 

Such supplemental demands may be made 1)¿twice¿prior to initial setting of a trial date, and 2) subject to the discovery “cut-off” date (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.010 et seq.), once¿after the initial setting of a trial date. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.050(b), 2030.070(b).) For good cause shown, the court may allow a party to propound¿additional¿supplemental demands for inspection. This allows for updating of previously requested information. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.050(c), 2030.070(b).) 

Deem RFAs Admitted

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted…. The Court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect…. (c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and 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), 2033.280(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 February 5, 2021, Defendant Couderc served requests for admissions (set one), form interrogatories (set two), special interrogatories (set two), on Plaintiff. (Schmeckpeper Decl. ¶ 3; Exh. A.) As of the time of filing the motion, no responses to the discovery requests were received. (Id., ¶ 4.) On January 26, 2021, Defendant also served supplemental interrogatories (set two), and supplemental request for production of documents (set two) on Plaintiff. (Id., ¶ 5; Exh. C.) To date, no responses have been received. (Id., ¶ 7.)

As Defendant properly served discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to a court order directing Plaintiff to provide full and complete answers to the outstanding discovery without objections. Therefore, the motions are granted. 

As the motions are granted, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorney of record Hess D. Panah & Associates is granted but in a reduced amount due to the simplicity of the motions and the concurrent nature of the facts for a total of $780.51 (3 hours at $160.17, plus $300 in filing fees).

Conclusion

Defendant’s motions to compel verified responses to supplemental interrogatories (set two), requests for admissions (set one), form interrogatories (set two), special interrogatories (set two), and supplemental request for production of documents (set two) are GRANTED. Plaintiff Jocelyn Candell is ordered to provide full and complete answers to the outstanding discovery within 30 days of this order.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff Jocelyn Candell and counsel of record Hess D. Panah & Associates are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $780.51, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.