Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 20STCV01649, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling
PLEASE NOTE:
The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.
Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at SSCdept30@LACourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.
Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.
If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.
If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.
Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.
Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
Case Number: 20STCV01649 Hearing Date: February 8, 2023 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
February 8, 2023
20STCV01649
Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two Nos. 40-64 filed by Defendant Nirav Amin
DECISION
The motion is granted. The request for sanctions is denied.
Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within 20 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 medical malpractice and loss of consortium arising from a knee surgery that took place in February 2019. Plaintiffs Bernarda and Jesus Nunez filed their Complaint against Defendants Nirav Amin (erroneously sued as Nirav Amin), and Pomona Valley Hospital on January 14, 2020.
Plaintiff Jesus Nunez was dismissed from this action on September 9, 2020.
Defendant Pomona Valley Hospital was dismissed from this action on December 9, 2021.
On September 26, 2022, Defendant Amin, the only remaining Defendant in this action, filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”).
Summary
Moving Arguments
Defendant propounded written discovery on Plaintiff on February 28, 2022. To date, Plaintiff has not served responses.
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.)
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.
Defendant’s counsel testifies that he electronically served SROGs on Plaintiff on January 26, 2022 with responses due on February 30, 2022. (Klimkowski Decl., ¶¶2-3.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded. (Id., ¶3.)
Because Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s request for written discovery, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to his SROGs is 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 is denied because this motion was not opposed.
