Judge Jill Feeney, Case 20STCV31717 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 20STCV31717, Date: 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31717 Hearing Date: March 6, 2023 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

March 6, 2023

20STCV31717

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories filed by Defendant Ziba Investment Corp. dba Arco Gas Station.

DECISION

This is not a motion to compel further and was wrongly filed as such.

The court will not consider any such wrongly styled motions in the future. Defendant is instructed to take its future motions off calendar if they are improperly filed as motions to compel further.

The motion is granted.

The request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within 30 days after the date of this order.

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

Background

This is an action for property damage, general negligence, personal injury, and other unspecified other damages which was filed on August 20, 2020. Plaintiff Cassandra Rodney filed her complaint against Arco Gas Station alleging she was assaulted, pushed, and accused of shoplifting. Plaintiff further alleges Defendant threatened to have her arrested and humiliated her. Plaintiff contends that Defendant later called her to pay her off with $25.

Defendant Ziba Investment Corp. dba Arco Gas Station filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories on February 2, 2023.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Defendant propounded written discovery on Plaintiff on December 7, 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 FROGs.

Defendant’s counsel testifies that he propounded FROGs on Plaintiff on December 7, 2022 with responses due on January 10, 2023. (Lauter Decl., ¶¶1-2.) On January 17, 2023, Defendant sent Plaintiff meet and confer correspondence regarding the late responses. (Id., ¶4.) To date, Plaintiff has not served responses. (Id., ¶5.)

Because Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s request for written discovery, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to his FROGs 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 are denied because this motion was not opposed.