Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

January 10, 2023

22STCV22650

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production (Set One) filed by Defendants Jesse Arce and Government Employees Insurance Company

The motions are granted.

Plaintiff Bryan Moldonado is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within 30 days after the date of this order.

The request for sanctions is denied.

The Court notes that it has no record that Defendants have filed an answer to the complaint. Defnedants are ordered to file and serve their answer within 10 days aftger the date of this order.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice and to file proof of service within five court days after the date of this order.

This is an action for negligence, negligent entrustment, and negligent hiring arising from a vehicle collision that took place in October 2020. Plaintiff Bryan Maldonado filed his Complaint against Defendants Jesse Arce and Government Employees Insurance Company on July 13, 2022.

Defendants filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”) and Requests for Production (“RPDs”) on November 17, 2022.

Moving Arguments

Defendants propounded discovery requests on September 30, 2022 and did not receive responses as of the filing of this motion.

Opposing Arguments

None filed.

Reply Arguments

Defendants argue that although Plaintiff did not oppose this motion, the Court is still authorized to grant sanctions under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).

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 (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).) 

Defendants move to compel Plaintiff’s responses to FROGs and RPDs. 

Defendants’ counsel testifies that he propounded written discovery on Plaintiff on September 30, 2022 with responses due on November 1, 2022. (Williams Decl., ¶2.) On November 4, 2022, counsel sent a meet and confer email notifying Plaintiff that the responses were late and extending the deadline to respond to November 11, 2022. (Id., ¶3.) On November 14, 2022, counsel called Plaintiff’s counsel multiple times regarding the late responses and received no response. (Id., ¶4.) On November 16, 2022, counsel called Plaintiff’s counsel, who stated he had received Defendants’ counsel’s emails, but requested an additional two-week extension. (Id., ¶5.) Defendants’ counsel did not grant the extension and requested the responses by November 17, 2022. (Id.) As of the date this motion was filed, Plaintiff had not served responses. (Id., ¶6.)

Because Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ discovery requests, the motion to compel FROGs and RPDs is granted.

With respect to sanctions, Defendants argue that the request for sanctions is justified because Plaintiff’s failure to submit responses was willful, citing Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 609. However, Fred Howland concerned a court’s discretion to award sanctions for violation of its orders. Here, Plaintiff did not violate a court order and the Court must follow the provisions of Code Civ. Proc., sections 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c).

Defendant also argues that the Court may grant sanctions under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a), which provides that the court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers stated that courts must look to the individual sections of the Discovery Act “regulating the six methods of discovery that aim to eliminate or ameliorate discovery abuses” when a party brings discovery abuse to light. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 501.) In other words, the provision of the Discovery Act governing a particular method of discovery is controlling when a party seeks to address discovery abuses. 

The Court of Appeal did not mention the California Rules of Court as a basis for the imposition of sanctions. 

Here, Defendants’ motions to compel concern responses to interrogatories and requests for production. Code Civ. Proc., sections 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) only authorize sanctions against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel. Thus, the Court is not authorized under the Discovery Act to award sanctions here where there is no opposition to Defendants’ motion.