Judge Jill Feeney, Case 20STCV05518 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

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.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to (1) Form Interrogatories (Set Four), (2) Special Interrogatories (Set Four) and Requests for Production (Set Four) within 30 days after the date of this order.

Sanctions in the amount of $1,290 are imposed jointly and severally on Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record. Sanctions are payable within 30 days after the date of this order.

This is an action for motor vehicle negligence and negligence arising from a car accident which took place in March 2018. On February 11, 2020, Plaintiff Joan Steuer filed her Complaint against Defendant John Isaacson.

On May 18, 2022, Defendant John Isaacson filed his motions to compel initial responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admissions, all set four. Plaintiff has not opposed these motions.

Defendant originally propounded his fourth set of FROGs, SROGs, RPDs, and RFAs on Plaintiff on February 9, 2022. Responses were originally due on March 14, 2022. To date, Defendant has not received any responses to his discovery requests.

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.)

A party waives its objections to a discovery request when it does not serve a timely response to the request. (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.290(a)) Even if objections do not need to be verified, objections will be waived if the responding party “fails to file any response within the statutory time period.” Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 658.

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.

Where there has been no timely response to requests for admissions, a “requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a). ) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and 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), 2033.280(c).)

Defendant is entitled to orders compelling Plaintiff’s responses to the fourth set of FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs. Defendant supports his claims with a declaration from his Counsel. Defendant propounded discovery requests on Plaintiff on February 9, 2022. (Ferraris Decl., ¶3.) Plaintiff has not contacted Defendant’s counsel to seek an extension of time to respond. (Id., ¶4.) This is the second time Defendant has had to file a motion to compel discovery responses. (Motion, p.4.) Because no responses have been served to date, Defendant’s motions are granted.

With respect to sanctions, the Court finds that Plaintiff has misused the discovery process by failing to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests. Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $760 per motion and supports his request with a declaration from his counsel. However, since the motions were unopposed and substantially the same, the Court grants sanctions in the amount of $1,290