Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 20STCV17727, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV17727, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17727 Hearing Date: September 14, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motions to compel are GRANTED.

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED.

Background

On May 8, 2020, Plaintiff William Ball (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Miguel Jesus Contreras (Defendant), and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive asserting a cause of action for motor vehicle stemming from a vehicle collision that occurred on May 11, 2018.

On January 18, 2023, Defendant filed motions to compel Plaintiff to serve verified responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One). No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

A responding party has 30 days after service of interrogatories and an inspection demand to serve their responses on the propounding party and/or party making the demand. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a).) However, if interrogatories and inspection demand are served by electronic service, a responding party has an additional 2 court days to respond. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(a)(3)(B).)

If the responding party fails to timely respond to the interrogatories, “The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).)

If a responding party fails to timely respond to the inspection demand, “The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)

Furthermore, the party propounding the interrogatories and/or making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories and inspection demand. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).) And “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 does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’ requirement.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404)

Discussion

On August 30, 2022, Defendant Miguel Jesus Contreras served Plaintiff William Ball with Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) via electronic mail. (Declaration of Allen S. Aho in Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories (Set One) ¶ 3, Exhibit “A”; see also Declaration of Allen S. Aho in Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories (Set One); and Declaration of Allen S. Aho in Motion to Compel Answers to Request for Production of Documents (Set One).)

Although not required by statute or case law, Defendant states that on October 12, 2022 and November 9, 2022, he attempted to meet and confer by sending a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting verified discovery responses be served. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exhibit “B”.)

Plaintiff has not served any responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One). Defendant need show no more. The motions to compel are GRANTED.

Request for Monetary Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory unless the Court finds that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification or that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. No evidence of substantial justification or injustice is present in the record. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the request for sanctions.

Defendant requests an award of $300 in monetary sanctions for each motion. The Court finds that amount reasonable and appropriate. According to counsel’s declaration, counsel bills at $200 per hour, spent an hour of time on each motion, and expects that one hour of time will be necessary for preparing for and attending the hearing. In addition, there was a filing of fee of $60 on each motion. Even setting aside the filing fee, it is reasonable for counsel to spend 1.5 hours on each of these motions (through the hearing), providing the Court with an adequate basis to award sanctions in the amount of $300 per motion, or $900 in total. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a).)

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to compel are GRANTED. Plaintiff Will Ball is ORDERED to serve verified, written, code-compliant responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) within 30 days of notice of this order.

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendant monetary sanctions in the total amount of $900 ($300 per motion multiplied by three motions) within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.