Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: BC701429, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC701429    Hearing Date: July 21, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Henrie Miguel Couderc’s Motion to Compel Responses to Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set 3, and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set 3 is GRANTED.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $455.34.

Discussion

 
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, subds. (b) & (c).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless the court subsequently determines, on motion, that “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” with the code and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served and no meet and confer is required when a party does not respond to discovery requests. 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, 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).)

If a party to whom document requests are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling written responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (b) & (c).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless the court subsequently determines, on motion, that “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” with the code and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served and no meet and confer is required when a party does not respond to discovery requests. 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 a [document request], 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).)

Here, Defendant served Plaintiff with interrogatories and document requests on December 29, 2022. (Schmeckpeper Decl., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A-B.) Plaintiff never responded. (Id., ¶¶ 2, 4.)  Nor has Plaintiff opposed this motion.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel Plaintiff to provide code-complaint written responses to the interrogatories and document requests propounded by Defendant.

Sanctions

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300 in the amount of $455.34 ($395.34 in legal fees and $60 in filing fees). (See Schmeckpeper Decl., ¶ 5.)  

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED. The Court orders Plaintiff to provide code-complaint written responses to the Special Interrogatories (Set 3) and the Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set 3) within 20 days of the date of this Order. 

Defendant’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff Jocelyn Candell and counsel of record D. Hess Panah, Esq. are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $455.34 within 30 days of the date of this Order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.