Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV14487, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14487    Hearing Date: November 13, 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 Regina Isaac (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Mariefe Dizon, in pro per (“Plaintiff”) to serve verified responses, without objections, to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One. Defendant seeks monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

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

On May 30, 2024, the Court conditionally granted Plaintiff’s former counsel’s motion to be relieved. Counsel was ordered to file an amended form MC-053 with corrected future proceedings and then serve the signed order. (Min. Order, 5/30/24.) Counsel would remain the counsel of record until the proof of service of the signed order was filed. (Ibid.)

The Order Granting the Motion to be Relieved was signed by the Court on June 7, 2024. However, no proof of service shows it was served on Plaintiff after it was signed. Therefore, the Court concludes that Arnak Azaryan is still counsel of record for Plaintiff.

Here, Defendant served Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff on February 16, 2024. (Zuniga Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Defendant conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel at the time who requested extensions until he was relieved. Defendant agreed on the condition that Plaintiff’s counsel would send the discovery requests to Plaintiff and explain they were due. After the motion to relieve was granted, Defendant sent courtesy copies of the discovery to Plaintiff’s address on June 19, 2024. (Id. ¶ 6.) Since then, no responses have been received.

However, because the motions were not served on Plaintiff’s counsel of record, they are denied on procedural grounds.          

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motions to Compel Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One are DENIED.

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