Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV02923, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02923    Hearing Date: February 27, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Edgardo Rodlan’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; Defendant Edgardo Rodlan’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories; Defendant Edgardo Rodlan’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents.

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On January 25, 2021, Plaintiff Claudia Wheeles (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Edgardo Roldan (“Defendant”) for premises liability.

On April 27, 2021, Defendant filed a response.

On November 4, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to be heard on January 12, 2023. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to February 27, 2023.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 26, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests the Court grant the motions to compel discovery. Defendant also requests the Court impose sanctions totaling $12,000.00 across all motions.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300, “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” According to CCP § 2030.260, for a response to interrogatories to be timely, it must be served within 30 days of service.  CCP § 2031.260 provides the same 30-day deadline for request for production responses.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides that “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” According to CCP §2023.010(d), misuse of the discovery process includes “failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(c) states that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.”

DISCUSSION

Discovery

Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery via email on April 10, 2022. Defendant’s previous motion to compel discovery was granted on August 26, 2022. Plaintiff has still yet to serve responses.

The Court has already issued an order compelling discovery; the Court will not issue an additional order at this time, nor impose additional sanctions regarding compelling of discovery. This motion is the improper avenue for relief.  The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Edgardo Rodlan’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is DENIED.

Defendant Edgardo Rodlan’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is DENIED.

Defendant Edgardo Rodlan’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents is DENIED.

Defendant Edgardo Rodlan’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.