This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/05/2020 at 07:41:55 (UTC).

MARIO ROBERTO RAMOS VS PACIFIC CENTREX DATAVO, LLC

Case Summary

On 02/04/2019 MARIO ROBERTO RAMOS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against PACIFIC CENTREX DATAVO, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1099

  • Filing Date:

    02/04/2019

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

RAMOS MARIO ROBERTO DBA RAMOS FILING N TYPING SERVICE

Defendant

PACIFIC CENTREX DATAVO LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

FEINGOLD ERIK

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

7/29/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial)

6/10/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/17/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/17/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/17/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery)

3/3/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

3/3/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

12/10/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

5/20/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

5/22/2019: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Answer - Answer PACIFIC CENTREX DATAVO, LLC TO COMPLAINT

5/23/2019: Answer - Answer PACIFIC CENTREX DATAVO, LLC TO COMPLAINT

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

3/26/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

2/4/2019: Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

Complaint - Complaint

2/4/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

2/4/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

2/4/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

2/4/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

2/4/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/31/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 07/31/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/07/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 07/31/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Mario Roberto Ramos on 02/04/2019, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Mario Roberto Ramos as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 07/16/2020 at 09:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 07/16/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 07/16/2020 at 09:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 07/16/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery scheduled for 07/16/2020 at 09:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 07/16/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents scheduled for 07/16/2020 at 09:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 07/16/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial) of 06/10/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
31 More Docket Entries
  • 02/15/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Mario Roberto Ramos (Plaintiff); As to: Pacific Centrex Datavo, LLC (Defendant); Service Date: 02/08/19; Service Cost: 65.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Mario Roberto Ramos (Plaintiff); As to: Pacific Centrex Datavo, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Mario Roberto Ramos (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/07/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by: Mario Roberto Ramos (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC01099    Hearing Date: July 16, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; 233.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Pacific Centrex Datavo, LLC’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant’s request to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted is also GRANTED.

SERVICE

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 14, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 14, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 4, 2019, Plaintiff Mario Roberto Ramos dba Ramos Filing N Typing Service (“Plaintiff”) filed an action, in pro per, for breach of contract and intentional tort against Defendant Pacific Centrex Datavo, LLC (“Defendant”). On May 23, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On December 10, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Form/Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”).

On March 3, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s request to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and ordered Plaintiff to pay sanctions of $460.00 within thirty (30) days of service of notice of the order. (3/3/20 Minute Order.) However, Defendant’s requests to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, and request to deem Requests for Admission admitted against Plaintiff were continued for failure to pay the appropriate number of filing fees. (Id.)

On March 3, 2020, Defendant paid one $60.00 filing fee, and on March 5, 2020, it paid two additional $60.00 filing fees.

To date, no opposition has been filed.  

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

  1. Special Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents

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.) 

Here, Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on October 8, 2019 via regular mail. (Mot., Freidman Decl., ¶ 2, Exhs. 2, 3.) On November 7, 2019, Defendant granted Plaintiff an extension up to and including November 22, 2019 to respond. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. 6) After not receiving responses by the extension deadline, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff an email regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Id.) As of the date of this Motion, Defendant did not receive any responses to the discovery. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

  1. Requests for Admission

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)  “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).)  A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang(1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission, Set One, on October 8, 2019 via regular mail. (Mot., Freidman Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 4.) As noted above, on November 7, 2019, Defendant granted Plaintiff an extension up to and including November 22, 2019 to respond. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. 6) After not receiving any responses by the extension deadline, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff an email regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Id.) As of the date of this Motion, Defendant did not receive any responses. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

  1. Sanctions

Sanctions were previously awarded in the amount of $460.00 for bringing this single discovery motion. (3/3/20 Minute Order.) Thus, the Court does not award any additional sanctions.

  1. Conclusion & Order

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Pacific Centrex Datavo, LLC’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant’s request to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted against Plaintiff is also GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC01099    Hearing Date: March 03, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIOS

(CCP § 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $460.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

The hearing on Defendant’s (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, and (3) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted are CONTINUED TO MAY 6, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Defendant must reserve hearings for three separate motions and must pay three separate filing fees. At least 16 court days before the new hearing date, Defendant is to file and serve the three separate motions. Failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in the motions being placed off calendar.

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 4, 2019, Plaintiff Mario Roberto Ramos dba Ramos Filing N Typing Service (“Plaintiff”) filed an action, in pro per, for breach of contract and intentional tort against Defendant Pacific Centrex Datavo, LLC (“Defendant”). On May 23, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On December 10, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Form/Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission and to Deem Request for Admission Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

  1. Improper Combination of Discovery Motions

Defendant’s discovery Motion impermissibly attempts to combine multiple requests for relief into a single motion. The Notice of Motion states that Defendant moves the Court to compel Plaintiff to respond without objections to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production of Documents (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One). (Mot., p. 2.) Defendant also states he seeks an order that the Requests for Admission (Set One) be deemed admitted. (Id.)

Filing the motions as a single motion negatively impacts the Court’s calendar by placing more motions on the calendar than slots have been provided by the online reservation system.

Finally, combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Statutorily required filing fees are jurisdictional and “it is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily required filing fees.” (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Here, Defendant has only paid one filing fee for what should have been four separate motions.

Based on the foregoing, the Court will rule only as to the request to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One).

  1. Form Interrogatories

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 timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) 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).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) 

Here, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One) on October 8, 2019 by mail. (Mot., Friedman Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Defendant granted Plaintiff an extension up to and including November 22, 2019 to provide responses, and granted a second extension up to December 6, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exhs. 5, 6.) To date, Defendant has not received any responses to the discovery requests. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses to the Form Interrogatories without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)

  1. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant’s counsel requests sanctions of $2,860.00, which include seven hours of attorney time billed at $400.00 per hour and one filing fee of $60.00. (Mot., Friedman Decl., ¶ 6.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of the instant Motion and the lack of opposition and reply. Accordingly, Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $460.00 based on one hour of attorney time and one filing fee of $60.00. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

  1. Conclusion & Order

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $460.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

The hearing on Defendant’s (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, and (3) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted are CONTINUED TO MAY 6, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Defendant must reserve hearings for three separate motions and must pay three separate filing fees. At least 16 court days before the new hearing date, Defendant is to file and serve the three separate motions. Failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in the motions being placed off calendar.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC01099    Hearing Date: March 02, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIOS

(CCP § 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $460.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

The hearing on Defendant’s (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, and (3) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted are CONTINUED TO MAY 6, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Defendant must reserve hearings for three separate motions and must pay three separate filing fees. At least 16 court days before the new hearing date, Defendant is to file and serve the three separate motions. Failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in the motions being placed off calendar.

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 4, 2019, Plaintiff Mario Roberto Ramos dba Ramos Filing N Typing Service (“Plaintiff”) filed an action, in pro per, for breach of contract and intentional tort against Defendant Pacific Centrex Datavo, LLC (“Defendant”). On May 23, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On December 10, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Form/Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission and to Deem Request for Admission Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

  1. Improper Combination of Discovery Motions

Defendant’s discovery Motion impermissibly attempts to combine multiple requests for relief into a single motion. The Notice of Motion states that Defendant moves the Court to compel Plaintiff to respond without objections to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production of Documents (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One). (Mot., p. 2.) Defendant also states he seeks an order that the Requests for Admission (Set One) be deemed admitted. (Id.)

Filing the motions as a single motion negatively impacts the Court’s calendar by placing more motions on the calendar than slots have been provided by the online reservation system.

Finally, combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Statutorily required filing fees are jurisdictional and “it is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily required filing fees.” (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Here, Defendant has only paid one filing fee for what should have been four separate motions.

Based on the foregoing, the Court will rule only as to the request to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One).

  1. Form Interrogatories

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 timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) 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).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Here, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One) on October 8, 2019 by mail. (Mot., Friedman Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Defendant granted Plaintiff an extension up to and including November 22, 2019 to provide responses, and granted a second extension up to December 6, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exhs. 5, 6.) To date, Defendant has not received any responses to the discovery requests. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses to the Form Interrogatories without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)

  1. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant’s counsel requests sanctions of $2,860.00, which include seven hours of attorney time billed at $400.00 per hour and one filing fee of $60.00. (Mot., Friedman Decl., ¶ 6.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of the instant Motion and the lack of opposition and reply. Accordingly, Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $460.00 based on one hour of attorney time and one filing fee of $60.00. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

  1. Conclusion & Order

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $460.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

The hearing on Defendant’s (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, and (3) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted are CONTINUED TO MAY 6, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Defendant must reserve hearings for three separate motions and must pay three separate filing fees. At least 16 court days before the new hearing date, Defendant is to file and serve the three separate motions. Failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in the motions being placed off calendar.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.