Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 21STCV23756, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23756    Hearing Date: January 15, 2025    Dept: 45

LIZA THEVAL, ET AL. v. JIM FERSCH

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Date of Hearing:          January 15, 2025                     Trial Date:       None

Department:               45                                            Case No.:         21STCV23756

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Liza Theval

Responding Party:       None

BACKGROUND

On June 25, 2021, Plaintiffs Liza Theval and Dominique Theval filed a complaint against Defendant Jim Fersch.

On July 15, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the first amended complaint, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to pay them pursuant to a written promissory note.

On November 14, 2022, a stipulated judgment was entered for Plaintiffs against Defendant for damages of $64,384.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered serve verified responses to the discovery requests without objections within 20 days of this order. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $361.65 within 20 days of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay to the court a $60 filing fee.

LEGAL STANDARD

A judgment creditor may propound written interrogatories to the judgment debtor in the manner provided by Section 2030.010, et seq. (Code Civ. Proc., 708.020, subd. (a).) Interrogatories pursuant to this section may be enforced, to the extent practicable, in the same manner as interrogatories in a civil action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.020, subd. (c).) Similarly, a judgment creditor may demand that any judgment debtor produce and permit the party making the demand to inspect and to copy documents in the possession, custody, or control of the party upon whom the demand is made and in the manner provided by Section 2031.010, et seq. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.030, subd. (a).) Inspection demands served pursuant to this section may be enforced in the same manner as demands in a civil action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.030, subd. (c).)  

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)   

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any person who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, or request for production, unless that party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), and 2031.300, subd. (c).)  

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) provides: “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.” 

ANALYSIS

On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. (Stuhlbarg Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Responses to the Discovery Requests were due on January 3, 2023. No responses were provided despite meet and confer efforts. (Id., ¶ 4; Exh. B.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to an order that Defendant serve verified responses to the discovery requests without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 708.020, 708.030.)

Sanctions

As Defendant failed to provide responses to the discovery and failed to provide substantial justification for the failure to respond, sanctions are warranted. However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of this unopposed motion. As such, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted in the reduced in the amount of $361.65 ($300 per hour, for one hour, plus $61.65 filing fee), to be paid within 20 days of this order.

Further, Plaintiff has filed only one motion, seeking two sets of discovery. As a result, Plaintiff has only paid for one filing fee, and must pay $60 to the court for the filing fee of the additional motion it failed to file.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Sets One, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered serve verified responses to the discovery requests without objections within 20 days of this order. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $361.65 within 20 days of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay to the court a $60 filing fee within 20 days.