Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV02953, Date: 2025-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02953    Hearing Date: May 9, 2025    Dept: A

MOTION TO COMPEL 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 required 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: 

Guadalupe Catalan (Plaintiff) brings this action against Edgar Abnusyan (Defendant) in connection with a motor vehicle collission. Before the Court are three motions to compel Plaintiff’s initial responses to Defendants Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents (RFPD). Defendant argues that although they have received responses to each of these demands, the responses were unverified and thus invalid.

On May 1, 2025 at 9:00 p.m. Plaintiff filed her opposition to the motions. The Court notes that this filing was untimely, as the deadline for any opposition was April 28, 2025. Regardless, the Court exercises its discretion to consider this late filed opposition. Defendant has filed no reply.

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. 

If a party fails to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner, the requesting party may move for an order that the matters be deemed admitted. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(b).) The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court unless the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with C.C.P. § 2033.220 prior to the hearing.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(c).)  By failing to timely respond, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(a).) 

II.                 MERITS

Timeline

On May 8, 2024, Defendant served his Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPD on Plaintiff’s counsel via email. (Jalali Decl. ¶ 2, Exhs. A &B.) Responses would have been due June 11, 2024. (Id.)

On September 11, 2024, Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer email to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting code-compliant responses sans objections to be served no later than September 23, 2024. (Id. ¶ 3, Exh. C.)

On September 23, 2024, Plaintiff served her responses to RFPD. (Id. ¶ 3, Exh. D.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s responses were unverified. (Id.) Defendant further contends that as a result of this failure of production, Defendant was forced to cancel Plaintiff’s deposition twice. (Id. ¶ 7.) Defendant’ counsel requested to meet and confer regarding the discovery and deposition and Plaintiff’s counsel provided a date of January 8, 2025. (Id.)

On January 8, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel requested to postpone the meet and confer, citing the Los Angeles fires. (Id. ¶ 8.) Defendant’s counsel agreed but their follow up communications have been unreturned. (Id. ¶ 8, Exh. G.)

For their part, Plaintiff’s counsel states that he was not served with the discovery requests in May 2024. (Teran Decl.¶ 2.)  Plaintiff’s counsel states the email containing the requests went into his spam folder and thus went unnoticed. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel further states that he never consented to electronic service in this matter and had never previously received any emails regarding the case. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.)

Plaintiff’s counsel further states that on August 9, 2024, he received an email from Defendant’s counsel that Plaintiff’ s deposition was being rescheduled because Defendant had not received discovery responses. (Id. ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s counsel emailed to inform he had no pending discovery requests on file, to which Defendant’s counsel responded by resending the requests. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states that, on September 12, 2024, he served responses to Special Interrogatories and RFPD via email and mail. (Id. ¶ 7, Exh. B.) Defendant’s counsel thereafter sent a letter stating they had received the responses, but there were still Form Interrogatories pending. (Id. ¶ 8.) On October 9, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel served responses to the Form Interrogatories. (Id. ¶ 9, Exh. D.)

Plaintiff’s counsel concedes that these initial responses were not verified, but states that he later served verifications after receiving them from his client. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.) Plaintiff’s counsel states the verifications were served on October 11, 2024 via mail. (Id. ¶ 11, Exh. E.)

Discussion

The court begins by discussing Plaintiff’s argument that the instant motions are untimely. Plaintiff argues that pursuant to CCP §§2030.300(c) and 2031.310(c), Defendant had 45 days from the service of a verified response to bring these motions. This is not correct. Those code sections govern motions to compel further responses, not motions to compel initial responses. Defendant’s position appears to be that because they never received verifications; they never received any discovery responses at all. Thus, the proper motion would be a motion to compel initial responses pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(b) & 2031.300(b). To wit there are no filing deadlines for such motions, in contrast to motions to compel further responses.

The Court acknowledges that Defendant’s motion is not entirely clear on this front. While Defendant has stated the appropriate grounds for the motion, their briefing delves into the substance of Plaintiff’s responses as though they were bringing a motion to compel further responses. For example, Defendant argues at several junctures that Plaintiff’s responses to RFPD (a single medical document transcribed in Spanish only) is insufficient production. Such arguments speak to a motion to compel further responses, not a motion to compel initial responses. Further, Defendant has adhered to none of the procedural requirements for the Court to properly consider such arguments in this motion (i.e. the filing of a separate statement).

In essence the Court has been presented with two narratives as to the discovery process in this matter. Plaintiff’s counsel contends it served the verifications via mail and Defendant’s counsel claims they never received them. These two narratives are not necessarily in conflict, it could be the case that Defendant’s counsel simply never received the verifications because of an issue with the mail. Whatever the case, the Court is satisfied that Defendant is now in possession of the verifications as Plaintiff’s counsel states he has forwarded the previously mailed verifications to Defendant’s counsel via email. (Teran Decl. ¶ 27.)

As Plaintiff has not disputed receipt of substantive responses, only the verifications, this subsequent email should mean that Defendant now has the responses upon which their motions are predicated. Accordingly, the motions to compel initial responses are DENIED as MOOT.

Sanctions

Lastly, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s request for 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).) Further, it is customary to grant sanctions where a party has filed a motion to compel, and the other party fails to file an opposition. (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).) 

It appears to the Court from a review of the moving and opposing papers that a substantial miscommunication occurred here. It does not appear to the Court that Plaintiff’s counsel acted in bad faith in failing to respond to the demands or engaged in any other activity which would render monetary sanctions appropriate.  However, the lack of timely responses to Plaintiff’s inquiries perpetuated the miscommunication and has resulted in unnecessary motion practice.

On that note, the Court reminds counsel that it is the purpose of an attorney to decrease the temperature of litigation rather than increase it. While the Court understands the duty to represent one’s clients zealously, such should not be an impediment to the civil and informal resolution of discovery disputes. This Court does not look kindly upon briefing which attempts to impugn opposing counsel, no matter the circumstances, and rather prefers briefing to be focused on facts and law. The Court is confident that the parties will work together amicably moving forward to avoid any unnecessary motion practice and promptly communicate regarding discovery issues.

--- 

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 

Edgar Abnusyan’s Motions to Compel Responses came on regularly for hearing on May 9, 2025, 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 INITIAL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND RFPD ARE DENIED AS MOOT.

TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE IS SET FOR AUGUST 20, 2025 AT 9:00 A.M.

PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.