Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV01991, Date: 2025-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01991    Hearing Date: March 10, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF INTORROGATORIES/DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND MONETARY SANCTION is GRANTED, but sanctions are not granted as self-represented litigants are not entitled to recovery of such costs.

 

Background

 

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident that happened in July 2022.

 

On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff Joss Jesus Gonzalez filed suit against Ivan ds Jesus Comparan Ponce for a Motor Vehicle cause of action, and also seeking exemplary damages on the allegation that “Defendant was driving in such a manner that he was distracted and texting and driving. There were also numerous beer cans thrown out of the vehicle by defendant.”

 

On August 2, 2023, Defendant filed his answer.

 

On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney stating that he is now representing himself and denoting former counsel as Suzanne Parrazzo. 

 

On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

 

On October 16, 2024, Defendant filed a notice of association of counsel naming Benjamin Zeng as his newly retained counsel. (Counsel Zeng’s offices are located in Baton Rouge, LA.)

 

On November 13, 2024, Defendant filed a ‘substitution of attorney’ stating the same as the 10/16/24 filing.

 

On December 9, 2024, the court held its hearing on the discovery motion. The minute order states in relevant part the following: “The parties represent that they intend to meet and confer informally in an attempt to resolve the case. The Court rules as follows: Pursuant to oral stipulation, the Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (PER THE COURT - Filed by Jose Gonzalez scheduled for 12/09/2024, and Case Management Conference scheduled for 12/09/2024 are continued to 03/10/2025 at 10:00 AM in Department O at Pomona Courthouse South. Should the case settle, the Court expects the parties to file either a Notice of Settlement or a Request for Dismissal prior to the next court date.”

 

Discussion

 

Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs which he served on Defendant on 4/29/24.

 

As a preliminary matter, the court notes the subject discovery are not RFPs but rather interrogatories. (See Motion, p. 6 of 16 of PDF [Interrogatories Set One].) The purposes of interrogatories include eliciting information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, obtaining admissions, narrowing the issues, reducing the possibilities of surprise and unfair tactical gamesmanship or advantage at trial, facilitating disposition prior to trial through settlement or through summary judgment, and facilitating trial preparation. Interrogatories also may be used as a means of obtaining information needed in order to make use of other discovery procedures.

 

Here, a review of the interrogatories indicates that the questions are relevant–e.g., whether Defendant has insurance coverage and whether Defendant has ever previously been tested for substances by law enforcement. To the extent that the interrogatories are overbroad, vague, irrelevant, privileged, or would otherwise invade a constitutional right to privacy, no opposition has been filed. Thus, the motion is granted.

 

As for sanctions, a pro se litigant cannot recover attorney’s fees as a discovery sanction. (See Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1016-1017 [“We distill this wholly inadequate solution for all pro se litigants—including pro selawyers—who have prevailed on motions to compel responses to requests for production of documents: pro se litigant cannot recover attorney's fees as a discovery sanction, but he can recover the “reasonable expenses” he has “incurred,” including photocopying, computer-assisted legal research, and other identifiable and allocable costs.”].)[1]

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted insofar as Defendant is to respond to discovery but denied insofar as to sanctions.



[1] Plaintiff states the following in paragraph 5 of his declaration: “ I ask that the court award sanctions of $amount of sanctions. | base my request for the imposition of a sanction on basis that it took me number of hours hours [sic] to research and prepare the instant motion. My hourly wage is $your wages per hour times number of hours listed above hours equals $hours times your wages. In addition, the motion filing fee for this motion was $filing fee.”