BESMIR KRAJA VS MARIE BARTOLI ET AL

Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One)

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND

On March 15, 2018, Plaintiff Besmir Kraja (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Marie Bartoli (“Defendant Bartoli”) and Jared Najjar.  Plaintiff alleges motor vehicle negligence for an automobile-motorcycle collision that occurred on March 15, 2016.

On February 26, 2020, Defendant Bartoli filed motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300

On April 21, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Defendant Bartoli’s discovery motions to August 26, 2020.

On August 26, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Defendant Bartoli’s discovery motions to October 6, 2020.

On October 6, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Defendant Bartoli’s discovery motions to October 22, 2020.

Trial is scheduled for September 3, 2021.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant Bartoli asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents (All Set One).

Defendant Bartoli also asks the Court to impose $1,530.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

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, subd. (b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.  There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he 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.”

DISCUSSION

On August 26, 2020, the Court found Defendant Bartoli’s discovery motions were properly granted and $550.00 was a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.  However, the Court continued the hearing on August 26, 2020, and again on October 6, 2020, due to Defendant Bartoli’s failure to give notice to Plaintiff of the hearing on Defendant Bartoli’s motions.  Defendant Bartoli filed a proof of service of the Court’s various continuances and the new hearing date on October 7, 2020.  Plaintiff has not opposed these motions.  Accordingly, the motions are properly granted pursuant to the findings in the Court’s August 26, 2020 minute order.

CONCLUSION

The motions are GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses to Defendant Bartoli’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production (All Set One) without objections within twenty days of this ruling.

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record are ordered to pay Defendant Bartoli $550.00, jointly and severally, within thirty days of this ruling.

Defendant Bartoli is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One)

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND

On March 15, 2018, Plaintiff Besmir Karaja (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Marie Bartoli (“Bartoli”) and Jared Najjar (“Najjar”) (collectively “Defendants”).  Plaintiff alleges motor vehicle negligence in the complaint for an automobile collision that occurred on March 15, 2016.

On February 26, 2020, Defendant Bartoli filed motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.

On April 21, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Defendant Bartoli’s motions to August 26, 2020.

On August 26, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Defendant Bartoli’s motions to to October 6, 2020.

Trial is set for October 22, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant Bartoli asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents (All Set One).

Defendant Bartoli also asks the Court to impose $1,530.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

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, subd. (b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.  There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he 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.”

DISCUSSION

On August 26, 2020, the Court found Defendant Bartoli’s motions were properly granted.  However, there was no evidence showing Defendant Bartoli gave notice of the Court’s April 21, 2020 order continuing the hearing on these motions to August 26, 2020 to Plaintiff.  Thus, the Court continued the hearing to October 6, 2020.

Defendant Bartoli has, again, failed give notice of the Court’s continuance of the hearing on these motions.  There is no evidence showing Defendant Bartoli gave notice of the Court’s August 26, 2020 order continuing the hearing on these motions to October 6, 2020.  Unless Bartoli can provide proof of service of the motion at the October 6, 2020 hearing, the Court finds it is in the interest of justice to continue the hearing on these motions.

CONCLUSION

Unless Bartoli can provide proof of service of the motion at the October 6, 2020 hearing, the hearing on Defendant Bartoli’s motions is CONTINUED to October 22, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 in Spring Street Courthouse located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.

Defendant Bartoli is ordered to give notice of this ruling .

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One)

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND

On March 15, 2018, Plaintiff Besmir Karaja (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Marie Bartoli (“Bartoli”) and Jared Najjar (“Najjar”) (collectively “Defendants”).  Plaintiff alleges motor vehicle negligence in the complaint for an automobile collision that occurred on March 15, 2016.

On February 26, 2020, Defendant Bartoli filed motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.

On April 21, 2020, the Court continued Defendant Bartoli’s motions to be heard on August 26, 2020.

Trial is set for October 22, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant Bartoli asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents (All Set One).

Defendant Bartoli also asks the Court to impose $1,530.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

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, subd. (b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.  There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he 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.”

DISCUSSION

On December 9, 2019, Defendant Bartoli served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) on Plaintiff by U.S. mail.  (All Three Mahlstedt Decl. (“Mahlstedt Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exh. A.)  On February 19, 2020, Defendant Bartoli gave Plaintiff an extension to provide the outstanding responses without objections by February 24, 2020. Mahlstedt Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.)  Defendant Bartoli had not received the outstanding responses as of the time Bradley V. Mahlstedt signed his declarations on February 25, 2020.  (Mahlstedt Decl., ¶ 5.)

The motions are properly granted.  Defendant Bartoli served discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses.  There is no evidence showing Plaintiff of Plaintiff’s counsel acted with a substantial justification.  Similarly, there is no indication that an imposition of sanctions would be unjust.

Defendant Bartoli’s request for $1,530.00 in monetary sanctions for these straight-forward and nearly duplicative motions is unreasonable.  Rather, the Court finds $550.00 to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record.

Despite the above findings, there is no evidence showing Defendant Bartoli gave notice to Plaintiff of the Court’s April 21, 2020 order continuing the hearing on these motions to August 26, 2020.  As such, unless Defendant can produce proof of service of the notice of continuance of the hearing on this motion, the Court finds it is in the interest of justice to continue the hearing on the motion.

CONCLUSION

Unless at the August 26, 2020 hearing of this motion Defendant can produce proof of service on Plaintiff of the notice of continuance of the hearing on this motion , he hearing on the motion is CONTINUED to October 6, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 in Spring Street Courthouse located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.

Defendant Bartoli is ordered to give notice of this ruling .

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.