Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV34117, Date: 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34117    Hearing Date: December 22, 2022    Dept: 28

Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One, and Request for Sanctions

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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Michelle Anne Leonard sues Defendants Lyft, Inc., Myshelle Doe, and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, pursuant to a single cause of action for General Negligence on the alleged grounds that, on May 27, 2020, upon completion of a ride as a passenger using Lyft, Inc.’s rideshare service, Plaintiff Leonard sustained injuries when the Lyft vehicle’s driver—Myshelle Doe—assisted Plaintiff Leonard—a wheelchair bound individual—reach Leonard’s destination by voluntarily pushing Plaintiff Leonard’s wheelchair only for Doe to lose control of the wheelchair, causing Plaintiff Leonard to fall therefrom, resulting in injuries to Plaintiff Leonard.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant Lyft, Inc. appears before the Court seeking Court Orders compelling initial responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, Set One, served on Plaintiff Leonard by Lyft on February 28, 2022, and to which Plaintiff Leonard has altogether failed to respond. (FROGS Mot., 4:14-5:2; SROGS Mot., 4:14-5:3; RPDs Mot., 4:14-5:3.)

Defendant Lyft, Inc. also requests $660.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Leonard and her counsel as a result of Leonard’s failure to provide responses to the form interrogatories, $385.00 for nonresponse to the special interrogatories, and $385.00 for nonresponse to the requests for production, constituting alleged misuses of the discovery process. (FROGS Mot., 5:3-20; SROGS Mot., 5:4-22; RPDs Mot., 5:4-22.)

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to compel an initial response can be made on the ground that a party did not serve a timely response to interrogatories or requests for production. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (d) [interrogatories], 2013.300, subd. (d) [demand to produce]; see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) To establish this ground, a movant must show: (1) proper service (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.080, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.040 [demand to produce]); (2) expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after service or other agreed upon date (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subds. (a), (b) [interrogatories], 2031.260 [demand to produce]); and (3) no timely response (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 [interrogatories], 2031.300 [demand to produce]).

A motion to compel initial responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’ requirement. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.210-2030.310; Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.) Neither is a separate statement required when no discovery response has been received.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (b).) However, a court must deny a motion to compel initial discovery where the discovery sought is outside the scope of discovery. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2017.010; see CBS, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.)

Where a party engages in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, terminating, or contempt sanctions, including attorney’s fees. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) “Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to,” “(d) [f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) The 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, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant Lyft, Inc. makes the instant Motions seeking to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, Set One, served on Plaintiff Leonard by Lyft on February 28, 2022, and to which Plaintiff Leonard has not responded in any fashion. (FROGS Mot., 4:27-5:2; SROGS Mot., 4:28-5:3; RPDs Mot., 4:28-5:2.)

In support, Defendant Lyft, Inc. provides copies of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, Set One, and corresponding Proofs of Service, dated February 28, 2022. (FROGS Mot., Casey Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A; SROGS Mot., Casey Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A; RPDs Mot., Casey Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Defendant Lyft also provides the Declaration of Demian M. Casey, Defense Counsel, explaining that, despite multiple extensions for compliance, Plaintiff Leonard had not responded in any fashion to these discovery requests as of November 3, 2022—date on which the instant Motions were made. (FROGS Mot., Casey Decl., ¶¶ 3-10 [extensions], ¶ 11 [nonresponse], Exs. B-G [emails showing extensions]; SROGS Mot., Casey Decl., ¶¶ 3-10 [extensions], ¶ 11 [nonresponse], Exs. B-G [emails showing extensions]; RPDs Mot., Casey Decl., ¶¶ 3-10 [extensions], ¶ 11 [nonresponse], Exs. B-G [emails showing extensions].)

Further, a review of the discovery requests shows that Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, Set One, are within the scope of discovery because they touch upon issues germane to this action. (See FROGS Mot., Casey Decl., Ex. A; SROGS Mot., Casey Decl., Ex. A; RPDs Mot., Casey Decl., Ex. A.)

Plaintiff Leonard has failed to oppose these Motions. (See Docket generally.)

These grounds suffice for this Court to GRANT the Motions brought by Lyft, Inc. insofar as the Motions request initial responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, Set One, served on Plaintiff Leonard by Lyft on February 28, 2022.

The Court also finds that it is proper to GRANT monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,430.00 against Plaintiff Leonard and Plaintiff’s Counsel, jointly and severally—$660.00 plus $385.00 plus $385.00—based on nonresponse to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, Set One, respectively. (FROGS Mot., 5:3-20, Casey Decl., ¶¶ 12-14; SROGS Mot., 5:4-22, Casey Decl., ¶¶ 12-14; RPDs Mot., 5:4-22, Casey Decl., ¶¶ 12-14; see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2030.290(c), and 2031.300(c).)

The Court notes that while Plaintiff Leonard did not file an opposition to the Motions, the Court has the authority to order these sanctions pursuant to the California Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

CONCLUSION

The Motions are GRANTED as to (1) compelling initial responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, Set One, and (2) imposing monetary sanctions of $1,430.00 against Plaintiff Leonard and Plaintiff’s Counsel, jointly and severally.

Defendant, Lyft, Inc. is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Defendant, Lyft, Inc. 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.