Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV43063 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV43063, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV43063 Hearing Date: February 14, 2023 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

February 9, 2023

21STCV43063

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production (Set One) filed by Defendant Maria Edoumian

DECISION

The motion is granted.

Plaintiff shall serve verified responses without objections within 20 days after the date of this order.

Defendant is ordered to file and serve an answer or other responsive pleading 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.

Background

This is an action for negligence from a vehicle collision that took place in April 2020. Plaintiff Arman Sarkis Vartanian filed his Complaint against Maria Edoumian on November 22, 2021.

Defendant Maria Edoumian filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production on November 15, 2022.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Defendant propounded form interrogatories and requests for production on Plaintiff on March 3, 2022. Defendant has not received responses to the requests for production to date.

Opposing Arguments

None filed.

Legal Standard

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.

Verification

Objections to interrogatories and demands for production are not required to be verified because “objections are legal conclusions interposed by counsel, not factual assertions by a party.” (Blue Ridge Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 339, 345.)

Objections

A party waives its objections to a discovery request when it does not serve a timely response to the request. (CCP § 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.

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).)

Discussion

The Court notes that there is no proof of service of summons and complaint filed in this case. Additionally, Defendant has not filed an answer. Nevertheless, Defendant’s motion constitutes a general appearance.

A general appearance is equivalent to personal service of summons on a party. (Code Civ. Proc., section 410.50, subd. (a); Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Sparks Const., Inc. (2004) 114 CA4th 1135, 1145.) By making a general appearance, a defendant forfeits any objection to defective service. (Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. at p.1145.) A general appearance is participation in the action in a manner that recognizes the court’s jurisdiction before filing a motion to quash. (Mt. Holyoke Homes, LP v. California Coastal Comm'n (2008) 167 CA4th 830, 844.) Propounding discovery without challenging the court’s jurisdiction constitutes a general appearance. (Factor Health Mgmt. v. Sup.Ct. (Apex Therapeutic Care, Inc.) (2005) 132 CA4th 246, 250.)

Here, Defendant makes a general appearance because Defendant propounded discovery without challenging jurisdiction and seeks a court order compelling Plaintiff to respond to discovery requests. Defendant forfeits any objection to defective service and is deemed to have been personally served.

Defendant moves to compel responses to RPDs from Plaintiff.

Defendant’s counsel testifies that he propounded form interrogatories and requests for production on Plaintiff on March 3, 2022. (Evelshin Decl., ¶3.) After Plaintiff failed to served responses to the requests for production on April 8, 2022, counsel attempted to contact Plaintiff’s counsel. (Id., ¶¶3-4.) Plaintiff’s counsel requested a two-week extension to serve responses. (Id., ¶5.) Defendant has not received Plaintiff’s responses to date. (Id., ¶¶6-7.) Because Plaintiff failed to provide any response, Defendant’s motion to compel is granted.