Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV32925, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32925    Hearing Date: August 25, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One).

The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions.

Background

This arises from a motor vehicle accident that allegedly occurred on December 23, 2021. Plaintiff Sara Soleimany (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on October 7, 2022, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Defendant Serghei Vasilievich Petrenco (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an answer on March 9, 2023.

On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Defendant. (Champion Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. 1.) Defendant requested, and Plaintiff agreed to, a three-week extension of time for Defendant to respond. (Id., ¶ 4 & Exh. 3.) Notwithstanding the extension, Defendant never responded to the discovery. (Id., ¶¶ 3, 5.)

On July 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed these motions. Defendant did not file oppositions.

Legal Standard

A party has 30 days from service to respond to interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260(a).) The propounding party on a set of interrogatories may agree to extend the time for service beyond that 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.270.) If the propounded party does not respond in the appropriate amount of time, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) Where a party fails to timely provide a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may compel a response to its interrogatories, Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, without need to meet and confer with opposing counsel.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) Furthermore, failing to respond generally results in a waiver of objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)  

The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to Interrogatories . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Also, Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) authorizes sanctions for misuse of discovery, which includes: failure to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. (Id. §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (e), (f), (g) & (h).)

Discussion

Plaintiff propounded interrogatories on Defendant. (Champion Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendant obtained an extension of time to respond but, even with the extension, did not respond and has not responded to the discovery requests. (Id., ¶¶ 3-5.) Plaintiff need show no more.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to provide written responses to interrogatories is granted.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is also granted. Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses, the Court sets sanctions in the amount of $735 (1.5 hours of attorney time, multiplied by the hourly rate of $450, plus the $60 filing fee). (See Champion Decl., ¶ 6.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. Defendant is ORDERED to provide written, code-complaint, verified responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 30 days of notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions. Defendant and counsel of record Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $735 within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party to give notice.