## Facts

- Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. sued Pacific Healthcare Consultants, Zeppelin Corporation, and Bryan J. Kirchwehm, alleging misuse of confidential client information and related business torts after Kirchwehm’s relationship with Sinaiko ended.
- On February 14, 2005, Sinaiko served written interrogatories and document inspection demands; responses were due March 21, 2005.
- Defendants, represented by attorney Steven M. Klugman, served no timely responses and sought no protective order or extension.
- After Sinaiko moved to compel, defendants served untimely and incomplete interrogatory responses on March 31, 2005, leaving some interrogatories unanswered and claiming demurrers limited their ability to respond.
- Defendants did not timely respond to the document demands and did not timely produce documents.
- On April 26, 2005, the trial court granted Sinaiko’s motions to compel, ordered responses without objection and production within 20 days, and imposed $2,208.89 in monetary sanctions.
- Defendants sought reconsideration and later served partial document responses while withholding materials as “trade secrets” or “proprietary,” without seeking a protective order; they also failed to timely pay the first sanctions.
- After continued noncompliance, Sinaiko sought terminating sanctions; the trial court denied terminating sanctions but imposed additional monetary sanctions of $8,786.36 jointly and severally against defendants and Klugman.
- Defendants dismissed their appeals; Klugman alone appealed the monetary sanction order.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may hear and grant a motion to compel interrogatory responses under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290 when the responding party served untimely responses after the motion was filed.
2. Whether monetary sanctions for discovery misuse and disobeying discovery orders may be imposed on counsel personally, jointly and severally with the client.
3. Whether a statutory meet-and-confer process is required before bringing a § 2030.290 motion.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the monetary sanctions order.
- The court held that serving untimely interrogatory responses does not divest the trial court of authority to proceed under § 2030.290(b) on a motion to compel responses.
- The court held that whether to proceed under § 2030.290 after late responses are served is committed to the trial court’s discretion.
- The court upheld sanctions against Klugman, finding no abuse of discretion given the record of discovery noncompliance and violation of court orders.
- The court rejected the argument that a meet-and-confer effort is statutorily required for § 2030.290 motions.

## Legal Principles

- A party’s failure to serve timely interrogatory responses triggers § 2030.290 and results in waiver of objections to the interrogatories.
- Untimely interrogatory responses do not prevent the propounding party from pursuing, nor the court from granting, a § 2030.290 motion to compel responses.
- Late service of responses does not revive objections waived by the initial failure to respond on time.
- Trial courts have discretion to manage discovery enforcement and to select appropriate relief when late or deficient responses are served.
- Monetary sanctions may be imposed against an attorney who advises, causes, or participates in discovery misuse, including disobeying an order compelling discovery.
- Section 2030.290 does not impose a statutory meet-and-confer prerequisite.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed monetary discovery sanctions against defense counsel, holding that untimely interrogatory responses do not bar relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290, objections remain waived, and trial courts may sanction both parties and attorneys for repeated discovery noncompliance and violations of discovery orders.


Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751 (Ct. App. 2007)