Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV38628 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV38628, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38628 Hearing Date: August 5, 2022 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

August 5, 2022

21STCV38628

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff John Perez’s Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff John Perez’s Response to Requests for Production and Request for Sanctions

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff John Perez’s Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff Froylan Ramirez’s Responses to Form Interrogatories

DECISION

The motion is granted as to Plaintiff Froylan Ramirez.

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

Sanctions in the amount of $460 are imposed jointly and severally on Plaintiff Froylan Ramirez and the attorney of record. Sanctions are due within 30 days after the date of this order.

With respect to Plaintiff John Perez, the three motions are granted.

Plaintiff John Perez Ramirez is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to the Form Interrogatories, the Special Interrogatories and the Requests for Production within 30 days after the date of this order.

Sanctions in the amount of $1,380 are imposed jointly and severally on Plaintiff John Perez and the attorney of record. Sanctions are due within 30 days after the date of this order.

Moving party is ordered 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 car accident which took place in November 2020. On October 20, 2021, Plaintiffs Froylan Ramirez, Brenda Ramirez, John Perez, and Miguel Felix filed their Complaint against Defendant Miguel Felix. Plaintiffs allege Defendant made an unsafe lane change into Plaintiffs’ lane, causing the collision.

On May 24, 2022, Defendant filed motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories against Froylan Ramirez (“Ramirez”). Defendant also filed motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Compel Requests for Production, and Responses to Special Interrogatories against Defendant John Perez (“Perez”).

Summary

Moving Arguments

Defendant originally propounded FROGs, SROGs, and RFPs on Perez and Froylan Ramirez on December 31, 2021. Responses were originally due on February 2, 2022. To date, Defendant has not received any responses to his 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 moves to (1) compel Ramirez’s responses to FROGs and (2) compel Perez’s responses to FROGs, SROGs, and RFPs.

Defendant is entitled to orders compelling Ramirez’s responses to FROGs and Perez’s responses to FROGs, SROGs, and RFPs. Defendant supports his claims with a declaration from his Counsel. Defendant propounded discovery requests on Ramirez and Perez on December 31, 2021. (Dwyer Decl., ¶2.) After receiving no response, Defendant’s counsel attempted to resolve the matter informally on February 15, 2022, which yielded no response. (Dwyer Decl., ¶4, Exhibit B.) Defendant’s counsel attempted to meet and confer again on March 3, 2022. (Dwyer Decl., ¶5, Exhibit C.) Plaintiffs’ counsel requested a two-week extension to April 11, 2022, which Defendant’s counsel granted. (Dwyer Decl., ¶6, Exhibit D.) After again receiving no response, Defendant’s counsel sent another meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs on April 19, 2022. (Dwyer Decl., ¶7, Exhibit E.) To date, Ramirez and Perez have not submitted any responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. (Dwyer Decl., ¶8.) Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to compel discovery responses from Ramirez and Perez are granted.

With respect to sanctions, the Court finds that Ramirez and Perez have misused the discovery process by failing to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests. Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $860 per motion and supports his request with a declaration from his counsel. The Court finds $460.00 based on 2 hours of attorney time plus the filing fee to be reasonable for each motion as the motions are simple and unopposed.