Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

December 5, 2022

22STCV01607

-Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories filed by Defendant Wilber Garcia

-Motion to Compel Response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories filed by Defendant Wilber Garcia

-Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production filed by Defendant Wilber Garcia

The three motions are granted.

The requests for sanctions are 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. Plaintiff Michelene Linscott filed her Complaint against Wilber Garcia on January 13, 2022.

Defendant filed the instant motions to compel discovery responses on November 3, 2022.

Moving Arguments

Defendant propounded discovery requests on March 4, 2022. To date, Defendant has not received responses to his discovery requests.

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 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.

 

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. 

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 (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2022, No. B310118) 2022 WL 12010415, at *17.) 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 seeks to compel Plaintiff’s responses to FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs.

Here, Defendant is entitled to orders compelling Plaintiff’s responses to FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs. Defendant supports his claims with a declaration from counsel. Defendant served written discovery requests on Plaintiff on March 4, 2022 with responses due on April 4, 2022. (Schwed Decl., ¶¶2-3.) After receiving no response, Defendant’s counsel called Plaintiff’s counsel to inquire about the late responses and received no return call or response. (Id., ¶3.) On April 13, 2022, Defendant’s counsel served a meet and confer letter on Plaintiff’s counsel and received no response. (Id., ¶¶5-6.) 

Because there has been no response to Defendant’s discovery requests, Defendant’s motions are 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. Pricewaterhouse Coopers (Court of Appeal, Second District (2022) 2022 WL 12010415.) 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, the requests for sanctions are denied because these motions were not opposed.