Judge Anne Hwang, Case Number: 22STCV05598, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling

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.

Defendant Yaelin Estrada (Defendant) moves to compel Plaintiff Isaac Garcia Contreras (Plaintiff) to serve responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One.[1] Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290 (b).) 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 (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 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 (c).) Further, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.300, if a party fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Code Civ. Pro § 2031.300 (b).) The party who fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand unless the court finds that the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance or party’s failure was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (a)(1)- (2).)¿¿

Courts shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection unless the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (c).)

Defendant served Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One on Plaintiff on June 7, 2023. (Collins Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) On June 27, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s attorney’s motion to be relieved as counsel. Plaintiff is currently self-represented. Another copy of the discovery requests were mailed to Plaintiff on July 14, 2023, after Plaintiff’s counsel was relieved. (Collins Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. C.)[2] Notice of this motion was mailed to the address indicated on the order to relieve counsel.

As of the date of filing this motion, no responses have been served. (Id. ¶ 18.) Since no responses have been served and Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, the motions to compel responses are granted.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions to Compel Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One are GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide verified responses, without objection, within 30 days.

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

[1] Defendant further moves for an order of terminating sanctions “if Plaintiff fails to comply with the Order of the Court compelling Plaintiff to serve verified responses.” (Notice of Motion at p. 2.) However, to the extent that Defendant seeks such relief, Defendant must file and serve a separate motion.

[2] No proof of service is attached to Exhibit C.

DEPT:	32
HEARING DATE:	March 13, 2024
CASE NUMBER:	22STCV05598
MOTIONS:	(1) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One
MOVING PARTY:	Defendant Yaelin Estrada
OPPOSING PARTY:	Unopposed