Judge Deirdre Hill, Case 20STCV18965 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

ALERT

Due to Coronavirus, please consider appearing by phone for Department M cases.

Department M strongly encourages the use of LA CourtConnect* for ALL hearings, without need for prior approval, unless live testimony by a witness is required.

The contact information for LA CourtConnect* is:

https://lacourt.portalscloud.com/VCourt/

*Parties with a fee waiver on file may be eligible to appear at no/reduced cost

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Yajaira Chavez’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two)

After considering the evidence on the record and the parties’ oral arguments, defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) is GRANTED. Plaintiff Yajaira Chavez shall have ten (10) days to provide verified responses without objections to American Honda’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two).

On May 18, 2020, Yajaira Chaves, Yadira Gomez, Cristina Parra, and Maria De La Torre filed a complaint against Jessica Tucker, Spencer Kimball Tucker, and American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“American Honda”) alleging causes of action for (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence (against Jessica Tucker and Spencer Kimball Tucker); (2) Negligence (against American Honda); (3) Strict Products Liability (against American Honda); and (4) Breach of Warranties (against American Honda). Plaintiffs allege that this case involves a three-vehicle collision. On May 18, 2018, Yadira Gomez and her mother, Yajaira Chaves, were driving in Redondo Beach, when defendants Jessica Tucker and Spencer Kimball Tucker failed to yield at a stop sign and caused Yajaira Chaves’s vehicle to collide into the Tucker’s vehicle. A third vehicle, operated by plaintiffs Cristina Parra and Maria De La Torre, also collided into the Tucker’s vehicle as a result of their failure to yield at the stop sign. The car driven by Yajaira Chavez was a 2016 Honda Accord. Yadira Gomez was a passenger in her mother’s vehicle. As to plaintiffs’ claims against American Honda, plaintiffs allege that the airbags in Yajaira Chavez’s vehicle were defective.

On December 2, 2020, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a Request for Dismissal, dismissing American Honda as a defendant, with prejudice, as to the following plaintiffs’ claims: (1) Yadira Gomez, (2) Cristina Parra, and (3) Maria De La Torre.

On December 14, 2020, defendant American Honda filed its Answer to plaintiffs’ Complaint.

On November 19, 2021, American Honda filed: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories Set Two and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Yajaira Chavez and Counsel of Record; and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories Set Two and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Yadira Gomez.

On January 5, 2022, the court deemed both motions moot as responses had been received. The Court adopted its tentative ruling only as to the issue of sanctions and further ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding possible settlement.

On June 20, 2022, the court advanced the Jury Trial scheduled for November 2, 2022 and continued it to May 2, 2023.

On August 11, 222, American Honda filed a new Motion to Compel Plaintiff Yajaira Chavez’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two). No responses have been filed since.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403. A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. CCP §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a). Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404 (emphasis in original). “If a party fails to serve a timely response, and the propounding party moves for and obtains a court order compelling a response, the trial court must impose a monetary sanction against the delinquent party unless that party acted with ‘substantial justification’ or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.” Id. (quoting CCP §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).

When a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories, the requesting party may move for an order compelling a response to the interrogatories. CCP § 2030.290, subd. (b). A party that fails to respond to interrogatories “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 under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” CCP § 2030.290, subd. (a). A responding party must serve responses to a propounding party’s interrogatories within thirty (30) days of service. CCP § 2030.260, subd. (a).

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 “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. . . .” CCP § 2030.290, subd. (c).

American Honda requests an order compelling plaintiff Yajaira Chavez to provide verified responses without objections to American Honda’s second set of special interrogatories within ten (10) days of the hearing. Mot., p. 5. American Honda cites CCP § 2030.290 in arguing that the court should compel plaintiff to serve responses to the special interrogatories and that plaintiff has waived any objections in response to the special interrogatories. Id., pp. 4–5. American Honda includes a declaration from its counsel that avers: (1) on January 20, 2022, American Honda propounded the second set of special interrogatories on plaintiff; (2) by February 23, 2022, which was the deadline to respond, plaintiff failed to respond; (3) on February 28, 2022, defendant’s counsel’s associate emailed plaintiff’s counsel to request the responses (with a copy of the email attached as Exhibit B); (4) on March 3, 2022, defendant’s counsel called plaintiff’s attorney to ask for the responses, spoke with plaintiff’s counsel about the issue, and followed up that same day by email (with a copy of the email attached as Exhibit C); (5) further emails were sent requesting the responses on March 18, 2022, May 10, 2022, May 27, 2022, and August 4, 2022 (with copies of the emails attached as Exhibits D through H); and (6) that plaintiff never served responses to the second set of special interrogatories. Mot., Decl. Tabak, ¶¶ 2–12.

The Court finds that American Honda is entitled to an order compelling Yajaira Chavez’s responses to American Honda’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two). Plaintiff Yajaira Chavez was statutorily required to respond within 30 days to American Honda’s written discovery requests. American Honda demonstrates that plaintiff Yajaira Chavez was served with the above-referenced written discovery request, that the parties’ respective counsel met and conferred about the issue, and that plaintiff failed to respond.

Accordingly, defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) is GRANTED. Plaintiff Yajaira Chavez shall have ten (10) days to provide verified responses without objections to American Honda’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two).