Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV05502, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05502    Hearing Date: January 23, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Guido Enrique Hernandez 's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; Defendant Guido Enrique Hernandez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories; Defendant Guido Enrique Hernandez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents.

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On February 14, 2022, Plaintiff Mirna Perez Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Guido Enrique Hernandez (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On May 18, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On September 20, 2022, Defendant filed Motions to Compel Discovery Responses to be heard on December 27, 2022. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to January 23, 2023. On January 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On January 11, 2023, Defendant filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for August 14, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests the Court grant the motions to compel discovery within 5 days of the hearing on the motion. Defendant requests the Court impose sanctions of $210.00 for each of the three motions.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion and the request for sanctions.

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

On May 18, 2022, Defendant served discovery on Plaintiff. Responses were due on June 20, 2022. Defendant offered an extension to September 8, 2022. Plaintiff did not serve responses prior to the filing of this motion.

Plaintiff has since served discovery responses with verifications. In reviewing the responses, the Court notes that there are objections within the text. In failing to provide timely responses, Plaintiff has waived her right to present objections. Plaintiff must submit new responses, without objections.

Sanctions

Sanctions are warranted. Although Plaintiff’s counsel states that responses were not delivered due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to calendar said deadline, Defendant is still entitled to timely discovery responses. By failing to provide timely, code-compliant responses, Plaintiff’s counsel has misused the discovery process. As this was due to counsel’s failure, sanctions will only be imposed on counsel.

Defendant requests sanctions of $210.00 for each motion, based upon 1 hour of attorney’s work, at a rate of $150.00 per hour and 1 $60.00 filling fee. The Court finds this request reasonable and grants it in full.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Guido Enrique Hernandez 's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

Defendant Guido Enrique Hernandez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

Defendant Guido Enrique Hernandez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses, without objections, within 10 days of the hearing on the motion.

Defendant Guido Enrique Hernandez’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay Defendant $630.00 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the motions.

            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.