Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV01567, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV01567    Hearing Date: March 11, 2025    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: 10/16/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Jordan Imani Johnson  

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court to compel Plaintiff Raymundo M. Jimenez to respond to Defendant Jordan Imani Johnson’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and to impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney of record in the amount of $860.00.

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

BACKGROUND

This action arises from personal injuries and damages that Plaintiff allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle incident that occurred April 12, 2024.

On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff Raymundo M. Jimenez (“Plaintiff” or “Jimenez”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Jordan Imani Johnson (“Defendant” or “Johnson”) and Does 1 to 10, alleging two causes of action: (1) motor vehicle negligence, and (2) general negligence. Subsequently, Defendant filed an Answer on May 20, 2024.

On October 16, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (the “Motion”).

No Opposition or Reply papers have been received by the Court.

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.)

Additionally, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response ... [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

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

Defendant’s counsel, Kristine L. Harn (“Harn”), attests that on May 20, 2024, Plaintiff was served with the first set of Form Interrogatories by email. (Harn Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. “A.”) This service established that responses were due on June 24, 2024. No responses were received within the time permitted by law. (Id. ¶ 3.) On July 8, 18, and August 16, 2024, Harn sent correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting the responses to the interrogatories. (Id. ¶¶ 4-6.) However, by the time of the filing of the Motion, Plaintiff has not served any responses to the interrogatories. (Id. ¶ 7.)

Based on the above records, the Court determines that Plaintiff has failed to serve a timely response, thereby waiving any objection to the interrogatories, including those based on privilege or protection for work product, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a).

Nevertheless, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), “[t]he 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 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. ¶ (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.”

Here, Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition to the Motion, nor did he move separately for relief from the waiver. Additionally, there is no record indicating any responses have been subsequently served by Plaintiff prior to the hearing. Consequently, the Court finds that relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), is unavailable in this circumstance.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the unopposed Motion.

B.     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.)

The Court finds the mandatory sanction applies in this case. Given the substantial similarity of this Motion to several concurrently filed motions, and applying the lodestar approach, the Court determines the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the Motion to be $500.00, calculated based on a reasonable hourly rate of $250.00 for two hours of work reasonably spent.

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

CONCLUSION

Defendant Jordan Imani Johnson’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Raymundo M. Jimenez is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to the Form Interrogatories-General, Set One, within 20 days.

Defendant Jordan Imani Johnson’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff Raymundo M. Jimenez and his attorney of record are ordered to jointly and severally pay $500.00 to Defendant Jordan Imani Johnson’s counsel within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.