Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV43326, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV43326    Hearing Date: October 4, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury case stemming from a fall allegedly sustained on the property of a Marie Callendars restaurant. On November 22, 2018 Charles Tabizon (“Plaintiff”) was walking out of a Marie Callendars restaurant to his vehicle when he fell, broke his arm, and sustained other injuries. (Complaint, ¶¶ 15-18.) Plaintiff filed the Complaint on November 12, 2020, alleging a single cause of action for negligence (premises liability). Defendant has filed the instant Motions to Compel (“Motion”) responses to Demand for Production, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One. No opposition brief has been filed.     

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served and no meet and confer is required when a party does not respond to discovery requests. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

If a motion to compel responses to interrogatories is filed, the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.¿ 

Analysis

Here, Defendant served Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Records, Set One, on Plaintiff on February 9, 2023. (O’Hara Dec., at Exh. A) Responses were due on March 11, 2023; however, no responses were received. On June 2, 2023, the parties met and conferred regarding the delay and Plaintiff communicated to Defendant that the responses would be served by the end of June. (O’Hara Dec. ¶ 4.) When no responses were received, Defendant’s counsel again attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel, designating a new deadline of July 18, 2023 to serve responses without objections. (O’Hara Dec. ¶ 5.) Responses were never received. (O’Hara Dec. ¶ 7.)

Defendant also seeks sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $360 for each motion. The Court finds that sanctions are warranted due to Plaintiff’s misuse of the discovery process, and awards sanctions in the amount of $360 (2 hours of attorney time plus filing fees) for each motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED. The Court orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections within 30 days of notice of the Court’s order.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff must pay $720 to counsel for Defendant within 30 days of notice of the Court’s order.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.