Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

January 6, 2023

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

January 6, 2023

21STCV20891

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Sets One and Two) and Request for Production (Set One and Set Two) and Request for Sanctions filed by Defendant Greater Fountain of Life Church of God in Christ

To the extent Defendant has not paid four motions fees, these fees must be paid prior to the hearing.

The motion is denied as moot.

The request for sanctions is denied.

Moving party to provide notice.

This is an action for premises liability arising from an incident where a gate on Defendant’s premises allegedly fell on Plaintiff. Plaintiff Sherry Spratt filed her Complaint against Defendant Fountain of Life Mission Church of God in Christ (erroneously sued as Fountain of Life Mission C O G I C) on June 4, 2021.

Defendant filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Special Interrogatories Sets One and Two (“SROGs”) and Requests for Production Sets One and Two (“RPDs”) on November 1, 2022.

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.010, 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c).

Moving Arguments

Defendant propounded discovery requests on May 26, 2022 and June 2, 2022 and did not receive responses as of the filing of this motion.

Opposing Arguments

Plaintiff apologized for the late responses and states she served responses on December 27, 2022.

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’s responses to SROGs and RPDs. 

Defendant first propounded written discovery on May 26, 2022 and June 2, 2022 with responses due on June 27, 2022 and July 5, 2022 respectively. (Valenzuela Decl., ¶¶2-5.) On July 20, 2022, Defendant’s Counsel sent a meet and confer email to Plaintiff’s Counsel regarding the late responses. (Id., ¶6.) Defendant sent a second email on August 1, 2022. (Id., ¶7.) At the time this motion was filed, Plaintiff had not responded to Defendant’s discovery requests or inquiries. (Id., ¶8.)

Plaintiff’s counsel in opposition testifies that he served verified responses without objections on December 27, 2022. (Saleh Decl., ¶2.) Because responses were served before the hearing on this matter, the motion is denied as moot.

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.