Nothing In The Discovery Sanctions Or Other Law Mandates That Result.
A cross-complainant in Bogota Corp. v. Seiden, Case No. B332296 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 22, 2024) (unpublished) had discovery sanctions imposed for deficient special interrogatory responses after filing no written opposition to the discovery sanctions motion. On appeal, he argued that he had constitutional and statutory rights to an oral argument. The appellate court disagreed. Although CCP § 2030.030 does allow for “an opportunity to be heard” on discovery abuse issues, this does not guarantee a right to argument where a party fails to file a written opposition to the noticed sanctions motion; otherwise, a litigant could sandbag the moving party by not timely opposing. Furthermore, although a failure to file an opposition is not dispositive when a hearing is held, it does not mean that oral argument had to be heard where no opposition was filed.