Judge Jill Feeney, Case 20STCV43301 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 20STCV43301, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV43301 Hearing Date: October 14, 2022 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

October 14, 2022

20STCV43301

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) and Request for Sanctions

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

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production (Set Two) and Request for Sanctions

DECISION

The three motions are granted.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within 35 days after the date of this order.

Moving party is 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 that occurred in November 2018. Plaintiff Cesar Gabriel filed his Complaint against Defendant Scott Maynard on November 12, 2020.

On January 3, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was granted.

Defendant filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs on August 23, 2022.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Defendant propounded discovery requests, set two, on Plaintiff on March 9, 2022. To date, Plaintiff has not served responses 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.)

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

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).)

Discussion

Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff’s responses to (1) FROGs, (2)SROGs, and (3) RPDs, all set two.

Here, Defendant is entitled to orders compelling Plaintiff’s responses to FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs. Defendant supports his claims with a declaration from counsel. Plaintiff’s discovery responses were originally due on April 13, 2022. (Fakih Decl., ¶3.) On April 25, 2022, after receiving no response from Plaintiff, Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff inquiring about the status of Plaintiff’s response. (Id., ¶4.) To date, Defendant has received no response from Plaintiff. (Id., ¶6.)

Because there has been no response to Defendant’s discovery requests, Defendant’s motions are granted.