Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV41902, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41902    Hearing Date: August 29, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Schmalenberg’s motions to compel responses to Specially Prepared Interrogatories (Set Two) and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set Two) are GRANTED.

Defendant Schmalenberg’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.

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)

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

In Chapter 7, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Discussion

On November 8, 2022, Defendant Schmalenberg served Plaintiff Noelia Barrera (“Plaintiff”) with Specially Prepared Interrogatories (Set Two) and Responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set Two) via electronic mail. (Chan Decls., ¶ 2.) Although responses were due in December 2022, Plaintiff never responded. (Id., ¶ 4.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to these discovery requests.

As the motions to compel are granted, Defendant Schmalenberg’s request for monetary sanctions are also granted. On each motion, sanctions are awarded in the requested amount of $455.34 ($395.34 in attorney and legal assistant time and $60 in filing fees). (See Chan Decls., ¶ 6.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motions to compel. Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve code-compliant written responses to Specially Prepared Interrogatories (Set Two) and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set Two) within 30 days of notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS the requests for monetary sanctions. Plaintiff and her counsel of record, Anthony N. Ranieri Esq. are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the total amount of $910.68 ($455.34 for each of two motions) within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.