Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV02204, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02204    Hearing Date: June 7, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Anahid Hartoonian (Plaintiff) brings this action against Safe Ride Medical Transport Inc. (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges that she was injured while she was a passenger in a vehicle operated by Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that the collision resulted from the negligent operation of the vehicle by one of Defendant’s employees.

Defendant now brings three motions to compel initial discovery responses. Defendant seeks responses to their Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for the Production of Documents (RFPD). Plaintiff opposes the motion on grounds that they have subsequently produced responses.  

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response and for a monetary sanction.  (C.C.P. § 2030.290(b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need 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.  (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.) 

Where there has been no timely response to a demand to produce documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (C.C.P. § 2031.300(b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (C.C.P. § 2031.300 (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. 

II.                 MERITS

On December 12, 2023, Defendant propounded its Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPD on Plaintiff’s counsel via email. (Danishwar Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s responses were due on January 16, 2024, though Defendant did not receive responses by that deadline. (Danishwar Decl. ¶ 4.) On February 6, 2024, Plaintiff contacted Defendant’s counsel and requested a 30-day extension to respond (Danishwar Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendant agreed to the extension but noted that Plaintiff had waived objections by responding late. (Danishwar Decl. Exh. 2.) Plaintiff thereafter requested another week extension, which was subsequently granted. (Danishwar Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 3.) Defendant asserts that, as of the filing of these motions, March 26, 2024, no responses have been received. (Danishwar Decl. ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff explains that they failed to respond timely because the discovery requests were served to the wrong email. Plaintiff’s counsel states their firm only accepts service of discovery to the email address “legal@lainjuryattorneys.com.” (Berman Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel explains that this is done to ensure timely response to discovery requests, as emails to individual attorney’s often get lost in spam filters or are directed to the incorrect handling attorney. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states they eventually served objection only responses on March 4, 2024 as they were having difficulty communicating with Plaintiff. (Berman Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel states they served fully verified responses on April 2, 2024. (Id.)

“In many cases involving untimely responses, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to “meet and confer” (§ 2030.300, subd. (b)) and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under section 2030.300.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390. [emphasis added])

Defendant has rendered no reply to Plaintiff’s opposition in this matter. As such, the Court is unaware if Defendant contests that any of the verified responses are not compliant with their requests. It is also unclear whether the April 2, 2024 responses contain objections as the responses are not attached to Plaintiff’s opposing papers. With the information currently available, the Court finds the motions to compel are mooted by Plaintiff’s subsequent production. To the extent that Defendant believes the April 2, 2024 production is insufficient, such would be the subject of a motion to compel further responses.

The Court also finds that there was no waiver of objections by virtue of Plaintiff’s untimely response. On December 13, 2024, it appears that Plaintiff’s counsel notified Defendant’s counsel that the handling attorney on the matter was changing. (Flores Decl. Exh. B.) On February 6, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel requested its initial extension and noted to Defendant’s counsel that the discovery had been served to the improper email address. (Id. at p. 2.) Defendant’s counsel replied that he was never made aware of the email address for proper service and asked when Plaintiff’s counsel had notified him as such. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel then directed Defendant’s counsel to the change of handling attorney email which contained the statement that all notices, pleadings, and documents must continue to be served to legal@lainjuryattorneys.com. (Id. p. 3.).

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel had adequately demonstrated that their failure to timely respond was the result of miscommunication. Given the notice provided, Plaintiff’s counsel was reasonable to assume that any discovery in this matter would be served to the proper address. It also appears that Plaintiff’s counsel acted promptly to get responses to Defendant once they became aware of the discovery demands. At the very least, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond would be entitled to relief from waiver under C.C.P. §§ 2030.90(a) & 2031.300(a) on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to compel are MOOT.

Sanctions

 The 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. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).)

The Court shall impose monetary sanctions 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. (C.C.P. § 2030.290(c).) The same is true for a motion to compel a response to a demand for the production of documents. (C.C.P. § 2031.300(c).)

The Court declines to grant sanctions in connection with these motions. As the motions to compel are moot, any sanctions granted would necessarily fall under the discretionary provisions of C.C.P. § 2023.030. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond because of a miscommunication does not constitute an abuse of the discovery process.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Safe Ride Medical Transport Inc.’s Motions to Compel Discovery Responses came on regularly for hearing on June 7, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ARE MOOT.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT IS TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: June 7, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. Tavelman, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles