Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 23SMCV02790, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02790    Hearing Date: January 21, 2025    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

BACKGROUND

This case arises from a car accident.  Plaintiff Skylar Cronenweth claims Defendant Jasmine Shira Beroukim made an unsafe turn, colliding with her car, and causing severe injuries.

On March 18, 2024, Defendant propounded Form Interrogatories (set one); Special Interrogatories (set one); and Demand for Production (set one).  Responses were due by April 19, 2024.  Defendant granted Plaintiff two extensions to May 24, 2024.   

As of May 29, 2024, Defendant had not received any responses, and although not required by the Code, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel, requesting verified responses without objections, within ten days.  To date, no responses have been provided. 

This hearing is on Defendant’s three motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) (“FROGs”), Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“SROGs”), and Document Demands (Set One) (“RFPs”).  There was no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to compel an initial response can be made on the ground that a party did not serve a timely response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a), § 2031 subd. (a) and (b); see¿Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)   Failing to timely respond waives any objections. (CCP § 2030.290(a).) 

To move to compel initial responses, a movant must show: (1) proper service (see¿Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.080, subd. (a)); (2) expiration of the deadline for the initial response, 30 days after service or on date agreed to by the parties (see¿Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subds. (a),¿(b)); and (3) no timely response (see¿Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.90). 

There is no “meet and confer” requirement where there is a total failure to respond to discovery.  (Sinaiko, 148 Cal.App.4^th at 411.)  There is also no separate statement requirement for a motion to compel initial responses.  (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(b).) 

DISCUSSION

Interrogatories

            Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a) provides that if a party fails to serve a timely response to served interrogatories, that party waives any objections, and the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses thereto.  Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s FROGs and SROGs were originally due by April 19, 2024, and the deadline was extended twice to May 24, 2024.  As of the date of filing the motion, no responses have been provided.  Accordingly, pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, this Court grants the motion to compel responses to the interrogatories within 10 days of the Court’s Order.

Document Demands

            Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (a) and (b) provides that if a party fails to serve a timely response to a demand for production, that party waives any right to serve objections to the demand, including ones based on privilege or work product protection, and the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses thereto.  Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s RFPs were originally due by April 19, 2024, and Defendant granted two extensions, extending the deadline to May 24, 2024.  As of the date of this motion, no responses have been provided.  Accordingly, pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, this Court grants the motion to compel responses to the RFPs within 10 days of this Court’s Order.                                                                        

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions to compel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 21, 2025                                         ___________________________

                                                                                    Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court