24CV06352, Looney v. Sarpai Brothers, Inc.
Plaintiff Gary E. Looney dba Collectronics of California (“Plaintiff”), obtained a default judgment against defendant Sarpai Brothers, Inc. (“Defendant”). This matter is on calendar for Plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to special interrogatories (“SIs”) against Defendant under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §§ 708.020 & 2030.290, and to compel production of documents (“RPODs”) from Defendant under CCP §§ 708.030 & 2031.300. The unopposed Motion is GRANTED. Defendants shall serve verified code-compliant responses free of objections within thirty (30) days of notice of entry of the order on this Motion. Defendant shall pay $60 in sanctions to Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of notice of entry of the order on this Motion.
- Governing Law
A judgment creditor generally has the same rights to propound discovery to the judgment debtor in order to facilitate collection of the judgment. Particularly, a judgment debtor may propound interrogatories as allowed under CCP § 2030.010, et seq. See CCP § 708.020. Judgment creditors may also request production of documents under CCP § 2031.010. See CCP § 708.030.
Regarding the SIs, a party responding to an interrogatory must provide a response that is “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “[i]f an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) §2030.220(a)-(b). “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” CCP §2030.220(c). If a party fails serve a timely response to interrogatories, the court shall impose sanctions unless it finds that the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. CCP §2030.290(c). Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides that if a party to whom interrogatories were directed fails to serve timely responses, the responding party waives all objections, including those based on privilege and work product protection, and the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. CCP §2030.290(a)-(b); see also, Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404; CCP § 708.020(c). All that the moving party needs to show in its motion is that a set of interrogatories was properly served, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response has been provided. See, Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.
Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides that if a party fails to serve timely responses to requests for production of documents, the responding party waives all objections, including those based on privilege and work product and “[t]he party making the demand may move for an order compelling [a] response to the demand.” CCP §2031.300(a)-(b); CCP §708.030(c). When the motion to compel seeks a response to document requests, as opposed to further responses, no showing of “good cause” is required. CCP §2031.300.
When a party serves response after a motion to compel is filed, the court maintains jurisdiction within its discretion to determine the sufficiency of the response. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 410-411.
CCP § 2030.290(c) (relating to interrogatories), and CCP § 2031.300(c) (relating to requests for production of documents), provide that a monetary sanction “shall” be imposed against the party losing a motion to compel further responses unless the court finds “substantial justification” for that party’s position or other circumstances making sanctions “unjust.”
- Analysis
Plaintiff served their SIs and RPODs on April 29, 2025. Defendant has served no responses.
There is no opposition to the motion, nor is there evidence that there have been responses to the underlying requests. The time to respond has expired. Compelling responses is appropriate. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to SIs and RPODs GRANTED. Defendant will serve code compliant, objection-free responses within 30 days of notice of this order.
III. Sanctions
Sanctions are mandatory under the CCP for discovery abuses, absent substantial justification. Absent substantial justification, the Court must grant compensatory monetary sanctions which represent reasonable and actual costs to Plaintiff. While Plaintiff appears to also ask for some form of discretionary sanctions, he provides no authority to support them.
Plaintiff requests sanctions of his actual costs of filing fees of $60. Filing fees of $60 is appropriate. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $60. Defendant shall pay $60 to Plaintiff within 30 days’ notice of this order.
- Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to SIs and RPODs is GRANTED. Defendant will serve code compliant, objection-free responses within 30 days of notice of this order. The request for sanctions is GRANTED and Defendant shall pay $60 to Plaintiff within 30 days’ notice of this order.
Plaintiff shall submit a written order to the Court consistent with this tentative ruling and in compliance with Rule of Court 3.1312(a) and (b).