Forsyth County No. 05 CVD 6316.
CALABRIA, Judge.
Alma Blaylock Hairston ("plaintiff") appeals the trial court's order compelling discovery and requiring plaintiff to pay Gerry F. Hairston's ("defendant") attorney's fees. We affirm.
I. Background
Plaintiff and defendant were married on 29 June 1991 and separated on 18 February 2005. One child was born during the marriage. On 29 September 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint in Forsyth County District Court, seeking child custody, child support, postseparation support, alimony, and equitable distribution. Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim for child custody, child support, and equitable distribution.
On or about 20 July 2007, a "Memorandum of Judgment/Order" was entered. This order obligated plaintiff to pay $220.00 per month in child support to defendant. On 11 July 2008, defendant filed a motion to increase the amount of child support. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court entered an order increasing the amount of child support to $372.22 per month on 4 December 2008.
On 19 February 2010, defendant sent plaintiff "Defendant's First Set of Discovery in Child Support," which was comprised of a set of interrogatories regarding plaintiff's financial status. Plaintiff did not respond or object to defendant's discovery request. As a result, defendant filed a "Motion to Compel
Discovery and for Sanctions" ("motion to compel") on 19 April 2010. Plaintiff filed a response to defendant's motion to compel denying that defendant was entitled to discovery and a motion for a protective order on 30 April 2010.
A hearing on defendant's motion was conducted on 3 May 2010. On 11 May 2010, the trial court entered an order granting defendant's motion to compel discovery. In addition, the trial court ordered plaintiff to pay defendant $500.00 in attorney's fees. Plaintiff appeals.
II. Motion to Compel
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting the motion to compel, because defendant's interrogatories were not made pursuant to a pending action under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 26 (2009). We disagree.
"It is well established that orders regarding discovery matters are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be upset on appeal absent a showing of abuse of that discretion." Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bourlon, 172 N.C. App. 595, 601, 617 S.E.2d 40, 45 (2005) (citation omitted). "To demonstrate an abuse of discretion, the appellant must show that the trial court's ruling was manifestly unsupported by reason, or could not be the product of a reasoned decision." Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Clean River Corp., 178 N.C. App. 528, 531, 631 S.E.2d 879, 882 (2006) (citation omitted).
"Any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served. . . ." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 33(a) (2009). "Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer." Id. "The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories[.]" Id.
It is inappropriate for a party to decide for himself that an interrogatory is improper. It is his responsibility either to answer the interrogatory or to object. In the absence of an extension of time, failure to object within the time fixed by the rule is a waiver of any objection.
Golding v. Taylor, 19 N.C. App. 245, 248, 198 S.E.2d 478, 480 (1973).
In the instant case, plaintiff did not object to defendant's interrogatories within 30 days after they were served upon her, and she did not file for an extension of time. As a result, she waived any objection to the interrogatories. Since plaintiff did not validly object to defendant's interrogatories as required by Rule 33, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant's motion to compel. This argument is overruled.
III. Sanctions
Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred by awarding defendant $500.00 in attorney's fees. We disagree.
When a motion to compel discovery is granted by the trial court,
the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 37 (a)(4) (2009). "Sanctions such as . . . awarding attorney fees are well within the court's discretion in cases involving an abuse of discovery rules by one party." Kewaunee Sci. Corp. v. Eastern Sci. Prods., 122 N.C. App. 734, 738, 471 S.E.2d 451, 453 (1996).
In the instant case, we discern no abuse of discretion by the award of attorney's fees to defendant by the trial court. Plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion to compel was not substantially justified because plaintiff had already waived all objections to the interrogatories. This argument is overruled.
IV. Conclusion
Plaintiff failed to object to defendant's interrogatories as required by Rule 33, and she therefore waived all objections to the interrogatories. As a result, plaintiff was not substantially justified in opposing defendant's motion to compel discovery. The trial court's order granting defendant's motion to compel and awarding attorney's fees of $500.00 to plaintiff is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Judges STROUD and HUNTER, Jr., Robert N. concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).