Case Name: ?? Chen v. Chiang
Case No.: 2015-1-CV-280680
Motion by Plaintiff Rayne Chen to Compel Defendant Yao Chiang?s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and for Sanctions
??????????? Plaintiff?s motion to compel further answers to three special interrogatories was properly served on April 26, 2016, and timely filed on April 27, 2016.? Defendant?s opposition was filed on May 16, 2016, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b), and was served by mail in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(c).? The court has considered the opposition, for the reasons set forth below.
Defendant does not dispute that before the filing of the motion, she had provided no substantive answers but only responses consisting entirely of objections.? The opposition is based on Defendant?s service of amended responses after the motion was served and filed.? In his Declaration, Defendant?s counsel concedes that he did not offer to provide amended responses until Plaintiff notified him that a motion would be filed.
The motion as to further responses is denied as moot.? The motion for sanctions is granted.? The default rule under the Discovery Act is that monetary sanctions are imposed on a party unsuccessfully making or opposing a discovery motion.? Defendant has not made a sufficient showing to warrant the application of an exception.? Rule of Court 3.1348 specifically provides that sanctions may properly be imposed even though the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion is filed.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion.? For the reasons stated in Plaintiff?s counsel?s declaration, the claimed amount of time spent on the moving papers is reasonable.? Within ten days of notice, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff as and for attorney fees and costs the sum of $4,410.? This amount does not include fees incurred in connection with any hearing on this motion.