Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

December 6, 2022

21STCV13221

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) filed by Defendant Miguel Perez

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 within five court days after the date of this order.

This is an action for negligence and motor vehicle negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in April 2019. Plaintiff Merlita Moreno filed her Complaint against Miguel Perez on April 7, 2021.

On August 25, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to his Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), set 1.

Moving Arguments

Defendant propounded his SROGs, on Plaintiff on June 6, 2022. Although Defendant reminded Plaintiff to serve his responses, Plaintiff has not served any responses to date.

Opposing Arguments

None.

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 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).) 

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to his SROGs.

Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff’s responses to his SROGs. Defendant supports his claims with a declaration from Counsel. Defendant propounded written discovery on Plaintiff on June 6, 2022, with responses due by July 8, 2022. (Lee Decl., ¶2.) Defendant’s Counsel reminded Plaintiff of the deadline and allowed additional time up to July 22, 2022 for Plaintiff to serve responses. (Id., ¶4.) To date, Defendant has not received Plaintiff’s responses to his SROGs (Id., ¶5.) Because Plaintiff has not responded to the discovery requests, the motion 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, the requests for sanctions is denied because the motion was not opposed.