Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV35768, Date: 2024-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35768    Hearing Date: January 16, 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

            Defendants Arc City and Bryan E. Bohannan (Defendants) move to compel Plaintiff Esther K. Lee (Plaintiff) to serve verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production, Set One. Plaintiff has filed an opposition declaration.  

LEGAL STANDARD

Interrogatories

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).)

Requests for Production

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).) 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, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production, Set One, on Plaintiff on January 4, 2023. (Palys Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) The responses were due February 8, 2023. On March 1, 2023, Defendants sent a letter inquiring about the responses. (Id. ¶ 3, Exh. B.)

In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration, under penalty of perjury, that responses to the above discovery have been served. (Kim Decl. ¶ 4.) Counsel notes that when the discovery was first served, Plaintiff was in pro per. (Id. ¶ 5.)

In reply, Defendants do not dispute that responses were served, but argue they are deficient. Defendants state that Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to serve further responses but has not done so. (Lopez Decl. ¶ 3.) The Court notes that Plaintiff has submitted a verification for each discovery response. (Lopez Decl., Exh. C.) Therefore, a motion to compel further is the proper motion to make, including abiding by the Court’s IDC requirement in the Eighth Amended Standing Order.

Therefore, because responses have been served, the motions to compel are denied as moot. Defendants request for judicial notice is denied as it has no effect on the ruling herein.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions to Compel Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production, Set One are DENIED as moot.

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