Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV20736, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20736    Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    Dept: 74

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – CENTRAL DISTRICT

Department 74

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant London Carter      

RESPONDING PARTY: N/A             

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Discovery and to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

            David Jones (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on June 24, 2022 against London Carter (“Defendant”) based on alleged defamatory statements made about Plaintiff’s occupation. Plaintiff states that he earns his income as an airplane pilot, and that the defamatory statements have “made their way to the apartment complex management” where Plaintiff’s ability to pay rent in the future has been questioned. (See Complaint, 2:1-4). Plaintiff additionally alleges that defamatory statements have been made to local city officials. (Ibid.)   

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 and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c).) 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, subd. (a).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. 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 to interrogatories is filed, the Court may 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, subd. (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

            Plaintiff must respond within “30 days after service of interrogatories…” (C.C.P. § 2030.260(a)) Here, Defendant served three different discovery requests on Plaintiff on October 21, 2022. (See Mot. to Compel, 2:8-13). The deadline for responding was November 25, 2022. Plaintiff failed to respond, and never requested an extension. (See Declaration of Brian Anderson, hereinafter, “Anderson Dec.” ¶ 3). Upon reaching out to confer with Plaintiff, Plaintiff told Defendant’s counsel that although Plaintiff received the discovery requests, he did not respond because a government official told him not to. (See Anderson Dec. ¶ 7). When asked the identity of the government official, Plaintiff refused to reveal it. (Ibid at ¶ 8). No evidence exists that Plaintiff based his refusal on a recognized privilege, and Plaintiff did not move for a protective order. To date, Plaintiff has not provided responses to Defendant’s discovery requests.  

CONCLUSION

The court grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Discovery and to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted.

The court will sign Defendant’s proposed order filed on January 18, 2023.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 14, 2023

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court