Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24BBCV00292, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24BBCV00292    Hearing Date: January 10, 2025    Dept: A

MOTIONS 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 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: 

Robert Chavez (Plaintiff) brings this action against Jessica & Sergio Gallegos (Defendants). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ negligent operation of a motor vehicle caused them to collide with Plaintiff, resulting in serious injury.

Before the Court are three motions to compel Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ (1) Form Interrogatories, (2) Special Interrogatories, and (3) Request for Production of Documents (RFPD). Defendant has rendered no opposition to these motions. The Court notes that pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 8.54(c), failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to its being granted.

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 September 4, 2024, Defendants served Plaintiff with their Form/Special Interrogatories and RFPD. (Hanna Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) On October 15, 2024, Defendants’ counsel reached out to Plaintiff as they had received no response. (Hanna Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. B.) On October 17, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel replied that discovery responses were forthcoming. (Hanna Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. C.) Defendants state that they remain without discovery responses as of the filing of this motion. (Hanna Decl. ¶ 6.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ unopposed motions to compel initial response to their Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPD are GRANTED.

Sanctions

The Court has discretion to impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).) Sanctions are only mandatory as against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories or RFPD, unless the Court finds they acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(c) & 2031.300(c).) Regardless, 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).) 

Here, Defendants have brought three motions to compel, and Plaintiff has rendered no opposition. As such, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $690 as against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally. This amount reflects three hours of attorney work at the stated rate of $170 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee per motion. (Hanna Decl. ¶ 7.)

--- 

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 

Jessica & Sergio Gallegos’ Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery came on regularly for hearing on January 10, 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 RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES ARE GRANTED.

RESPONSES ARE DUE WITHIN THE NEXT 30 CALENDAR DAYS.

SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $690 AS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY.  SANCTIONS TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS.

DEFENDANTS TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: January 10, 2025                             _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. Tavelman, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles