Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV03549, Date: 2024-09-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV03549    Hearing Date: September 4, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 5/13/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Pablo Gaspar

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Cole Baber

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court compelling Defendant to serve verified responses, without objection, to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant and his attorney of record, in the amount of $2,436.65.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED as moot. The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from alleged injuries that Plaintiffs sustained in a vehicle accident on November 8, 2022.

On November 20, 2023, Plaintiffs Pablo Gaspar (“Pablo”) and Joanna Gaspar (“Joanna”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action against Defendant Cole Baber (“Defendant” or “Baber”) and Does 1 to 25, alleging (1) Motor Vehicle Liability, and (2) General Negligence. Subsequently, Defendant filed his Answer to the Complaint on March 28, 2024.

On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff Pablo filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (the “Motion”). Additionally, Pablo requests monetary sanctions against Defendant and his counsel. 

Subsequently, Defendant filed an untimely Opposition on August 27, 2024, and Plaintiff filed their consequently late Reply on September 3, 2024.

ANALYSIS

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, subd. (b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that needs to 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.) 

A.    Timeliness

An opposition to a motion must generally be filed and served at least nine court days, and all reply papers at least five court days before the hearing (Code Civ. Procs., § 1005, subd. (b).) However, no paper may be rejected for filing on the ground that it was untimely submitted for filing. The court has discretion to refuse to consider a later filed paper. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d).)

            Here, Defendant’s Opposition papers were filed on August 27, 2024, only six court days prior to the hearing, thereby failing to meet the procedural time limit under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b).

            Defendant’s counsel attests that on May 13, 2024, she informed Plaintiff’s counsel that the link to the motion papers was inaccessible. (Tiller Decl. ¶ 11.) Although an additional link was provided, she did not open it. (Ibid.) Defendant’s counsel only learned of the hearing schedule upon checking the Court’s register of actions on August 27, 2024. (Id. ¶ 15.)

            Based on the above declaration, the Court, in its discretion, considers the argument presented in both the untimely filed Opposition and in Plaintiffs’ consequently late Reply.

B.     Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

Plaintiff Pablo’s counsel (“Counsel”) attests that on January 29, 2024, Defendant was served with the first set of Form Interrogatories, to which responses were due on March 4, 2024. (Sadeghian Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. “2.”) Having not received any responses by the due date, Counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a written meet and confer letter on April 4, 2024, requesting that Defendant serve responses, without objection, by April 18, 2024. (Id. ¶ 6, Ex. “3.”) On March 28, 2024, Counsel sent another meet and confer letter, again requesting written responses to discovery.  (Id. ¶ 7, Ex. “4.”) Subsequently, on April 18, 2024, Counsel sent an email to Defendant, granting an extension to respond by May 2, 2024. (Tiller Decl. ¶ 8.) On May 14, 2024, Defendant emailed Counsel the discovery responses. (Id. ¶ 11.)

Based on the above records, the Court determines that Defendant failed to serve a timely response. Nevertheless, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), the court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: ¶ (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. ¶ (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Firstly, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’ Reply does not contest that Defendant’s subsequent response is in substantial compliance with relevant Code of Civil Procedure sections.

Secondly, the Court observes that the provision in section 2030.290 regarding relief based on mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect is identical in most respects to the language and spirit of section 473, subdivision (b). Both statutes serve similar purposes – to allow relief where it serves the interests of substantial justice. The Court’s discretion in granting such relief is not unlimited and must be exercised in conformity with the spirit of relief intended by the statute so that substantial justice is served, not defeated. Because the law favors that cases be tried and decided on their merits, if there are any doubts whether relief should be granted, they must be resolved in favor of the person seeking relief. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1419.)

Based on the declaration submitted by Defendant’s counsel and the application of relevant legal principles, the Court, in its discretion, finds that Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated excusable neglect, thereby justifying relief from the waiver that would preclude him from asserting any objections to the interrogatories. The Court perceives no prejudice to Plaintiff resulting from the delay, other than the need to pursue their case on the merits.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion as MOOT.

C.    Monetary Sanctions

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), “[t]he 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....” Additionally, California Rules of Court rule 3.1348(A) further provides, “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.” (Underlines added.)

Here, Defendant did not provide responses to the Form Interrogatories within the timeframe set forth under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.260. Although Defendant has subsequently served his untimely responses, the Court finds that it is appropriate to impose monetary sanctions.

The Court determines the total and reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the Motion to be $686.65, calculated based on a reasonable hourly rate of $250.00 for 2.5 hours reasonably spent, in addition to a $61.65 filing fee.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff Pablo’s request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Pablo Gaspar’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is DENIED as MOOT.

Defendant Cole Baber and his attorney of record are ordered to jointly and severally pay $686.65 to Plaintiff’s attorney of record within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.