Judge Jill Feeney, Case 19STCV36221 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 19STCV36221, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV36221 Hearing Date: February 10, 2023 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

February 10, 2023

19STCV36221

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions and Request for Monetary Sanctions

DECISION

Both motions are granted. The requests for sanctions are denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within 10 days after the date of this order.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

Background

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in October 2017. Plaintiff Jose Avila filed his Complaint against Defendant Jennifer Ricco on October 10, 2019.

On December 1, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”) and Requests for Production (“RPDs”).

Summary

Moving Arguments

Defendant propounded written discovery on Plaintiff on October 25, 2021. After granting an extension, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests.

Opposing Arguments

None.

Legal Standard

Compelling Responses to Interrogatories

Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.260, subd. (a).)

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

Compelling Response to Demand for Production of Documents

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (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.

Verification

Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all, and are subject to a motion to compel responses (rather than a motion to compel further responses). (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.) However, objections to interrogatories and demands for production are not required to be verified because “objections are legal conclusions interposed by counsel, not factual assertions by a party.” (Blue Ridge Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 339, 345.)

Sanctions

A court may not award monetary sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. §§2023.010 and 2023.030 standing alone or read together. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466.) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c)).) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to deem requests for admissions admitted if a party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed failed to serve a timely response to the request for admission. (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280(c).)

Discussion

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to SROGs and RPDs.

Defendant is entitled to orders compelling Plaintiff’s responses to SROGs and RPDs. Defendant supports her claims with a declaration from Counsel. Defendant propounded written discovery on Plaintiff on October 25, 2021 . (Schroder Decl., ¶2.) On November 29, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel requested a two-week extension, which Defendant’s counsel granted. (Schroder Decl., ¶3.) Defendant retained new counsel who substituted in on March 4, 2022. (Id., ¶5.) On August 11, 2021, Defendant’s new counsel confirmed that Plaintiff never responded to Defendant’s written discovery requests. (Id., ¶7.) In April 12, Defendant’s new counsel wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting full and complete responses by April 26, 2022. (Id., ¶8.) Defendant’s counsel made a second request on September 9, 2022, requesting responses by September 16, 2022. (Id., ¶10.) Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel again on October 7 and October 17, 2022. (Id., ¶¶11-12.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s requests for written discovery. (Id., ¶14.)

Because Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s requests for written discovery, Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to SROGs and RPDs are granted.

Discovery sanctions may not be imposed under Section 2023.030, even together with Section 2023.010, absent another provision of the Discovery Act that authorizes the imposition of sanctions. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466.) Sanctions for with respect to the interrogatories are only authorized against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses. (See Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.290(c).). Here, Defendant’s request for sanctions are denied because these motions were not opposed.