Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

December 27, 2022 

20STCV40872

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff Catherine Lehman’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions filed by Defendant Juan De Dios Mocinos Mora 

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff Catherine Lehman’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions filed by Defendant Juan De Dios Mocinos Mora

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff Catherine Lehman’s Response to Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) and Request for Sanctions filed by Defendant Juan De Dios Mocinos Mora

The three motions are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Plaintiff Lehman 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.

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in November 2018. Plaintiffs Angelo Zapata and Catherine Lehman filed their Complaint against Defendant Juan de Dios Mocinos Mora on October 23, 2020.

Defendant filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff Catherine Lehman’s responses to Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), and Requests for Production (“RPDs”) on August 11, 2022.

Moving Arguments

Defendant propounded discovery requests on May 25, 2022 and has not received Lehman’s responses to date.

Opposing Arguments

None.

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.)

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.

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. 

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, 500.) 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).) 

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff Catherine Lehman’s responses to SROGs, FROGs, and RPDs. 

Defendant is entitled to orders compelling Lehman’s responses to FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs. Defendant supports his motion with a declaration from Counsel. Defendant first propounded written discovery on May 25, 2022 with responses due on June 27, 2022. (Zegel Decl., ¶¶2-3.) On July 11, 2022, Defendant’s Counsel sent a meet and confer email to Lehman’s Counsel regarding the late responses. (Id., ¶4.) To date, Lehman has not responded to Defendant’s written discovery requests. (Id., 5.)

Because Lehman failed to respond to Defendant’s written discovery requests, the motions to compel responses to FROGs, 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, 500.) Sanctions for with respect to the interrogatories and the request for production 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) and 2031.300(c)). Here, Defendant’s requests for sanctions are denied because these motions were not opposed.

.