Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV33006, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33006    Hearing Date: February 26, 2024    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

            Defendant PM California Properties, LLC (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Parviz Ghanaei (“Plaintiff”) to serve verified responses, without objections, to Special Interrogatories, Set One. Defendant seeks monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

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. (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).)

DISCUSSION

Here, Defendants served Special Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff on December 24, 2022. (Babaian Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) When discovery was first propounded, Plaintiff was represented by counsel. On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney stating he was representing himself. On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed another substitution of attorney repeating this information but providing a service address at 1116 Mountain View St., Apt. 9, San Fernando, California.  Defendant’s counsel declares that since Plaintiff has begun representing himself, he has communicated with Plaintiff via telephone and email. Plaintiff appeared at the hearing on February 16, 2024 and confirmed that his address is Apartment 5, not Apartment 9. No opposition has been filed stating that discovery responses were served. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to compel but denies the request for sanctions as the imposition of sanctions would be unjust.                   

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve verified responses, without objection, within 30 days.   

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