Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV35476, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35476    Hearing Date: January 2, 2024    Dept: 29

Tentative

The motions to compel are GRANTED.

The requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part.

Background

Plaintiff Dru Davis (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action on September 27, 2021, asserting a cause of action for negligence against Alex Stuart Fink, 5 Star Hollywood Tours, LLC (collectively “Defendants”), and DOES 1 through 50, arising out of a vehicle accident that allegedly occurred on September 30, 2019.

Defendants filed their Answer on May 8, 2023. 

On that same day, Defendants served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One).  Plaintiff did not respond.

On November 3, 2023, Defendants filed motions to compel Plaintiff to provide initial responses to the interrogatories and document requests.  Defendants also seek monetary sanctions in each motion.

Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to either motion.

Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).)  In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

When a party moves to compel initial responses to interrogatories, “the 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 [the motion], 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).)

A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).)  In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

When a party moves to compel initial responses to requests for production, “the 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 [the motion], 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 of the Civil Discovery Act, 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., § 2023.020, subd. (a).)

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)  

Discussion

On May 8, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Form Interrogatories (Set One). (Kwong Decls., ¶ 3.) 

Plaintiff has not responded. (Kwong Decls., ¶ 8.)

Defendants need not show anything more.  Defendants’ motions to compel are GRANTED.

Defendants’ requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part.  Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses, and the economies of scale associated with filing multiple discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions on each motion in the amount of $592.50, calculated based on 2.5 hours of attorney work, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $213.00 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee for each motion.  (Kwong Decls., ¶ 9.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve verified, code-compliant written responses, without objection to Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 30 days of notice of this ruling.

The Court GRANTS in part Defendant’s request for sanctions

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff and counsel of record Hesam Yazdanpanah, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Defendants in the amount of $1,185 ($592.50 for each of two motions) within 30 days of notice of this ruling.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.