Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 20STLC01524 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC01524, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC01524 Hearing Date: October 31, 2022 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTIONS TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Uziel Eduardo Jimenezsolis

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion to Compel Discovery (Not Further) – Form Interrogatories (Set One) filed by Defendant Uziel Eduardo Jimenezsolis is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified answers, without objections, within fourteen (14) days’ notice of the Court’s order.

Motion to Compel Discovery (Not Further) – Special Interrogatories (Set One) filed by Defendant Uziel Eduardo Jimenezsolis is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified answers, without objections, within fourteen (14) days’ notice of the Court’s order.

Motion to Compel Discovery (Not Further) – Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) filed by Defendant Uziel Eduardo Jimenezsolis is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified answers, without objections, within fourteen (14) days’ notice of the Court’s order.

The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $435.00 as to each Motion, for a total amount of $1,305.00.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 24, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of October 24, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff Juan Manuel Duarte (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Uziel Eduardo Jimenezsolis (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence. The action arose out of an alleged automobile accident that took place on or around February 14, 2018, between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and Defendant, on the other hand.

On January 11, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer, denying all allegations in the Complaint.

On March 24, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Counsel, Ara Aroustamian’s, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. (3-24-22 Minute Order.)

On August 23, 2022, Defendant filed the three instant Motions:

(1) Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) (“MTC – Form”);

(2) Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“MTC – Special”);

(3) Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) (“MTC – RFP”).

On September 19, 2022, the Court noted that the Motions were not properly served on Defendant because they were sent to the wrong address. (9-19-22 Minute Order.) The Court continued the hearing on the Motion and ordered Defendant to serve Plaintiff at the correct address. (Ibid.)

On October 6, 2022, Defendant filed Proof of Service indicating that Plaintiff was served on October 5, 2022, at the correct address, with the instant Motions and a Notice of Continuance of the hearing. (10-6-22 Proof of Service, 10-6-22 Notice of Continuance.)

To date, no opposition has been filed.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Form and Special Interrogatories

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) Once compelled to respond, the party waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020(a), 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

On January 11, 2022, Defendant propounded Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Plaintiff. (MTC Form – Mackey Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A; MTC Special – Mackey Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Responses were due on February 10, 2022. (MTC Form p. 3; MTC Special p. 3.) Upon Plaintiff’s former counsel’s request, defense counsel extended the deadline for responses to the discovery requests once until March 14, 2022, and again, until April 13, 2022, given that Plaintiff’s former counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was pending in front of the Court. (MTC Form – Mackey Decl. ¶¶ 3-5; MTC Special – Mackey Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.) On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel was relieved from representing Plaintiff. (3-24-22 Minute Order.) On April 1, 2022, Defendant sent the discovery requests to the Plaintiff’s address, explaining in a letter in English that responses to the discovery requests were due on April 13, 2022. (MTC Form – Mackey Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. B; MTC Special – Mackey Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. B.) Defense counsel also sent a text message to Plaintiff’s phone number on April 13, and April 18, 2022, in English and in Spanish, regarding these discovery requests, but did not receive a response. (MTC Special – Mackey Decl. ¶¶ 8-9; MTC Special – Mackey Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.) Finally, on April 25, 2022, defense counsel mailed a letter in Spanish to Plaintiff’s address regarding the discovery requests. (MTC Form – Mackey Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. C; MTC Special – Mackey Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. C.) Plaintiff has not submitted any responses. (MTC Form – Mackey Decl. ¶ 11; MTC Special – Mackey Decl. ¶ 11.)

On September 19, 2022, the Court expressed concern regarding the service of the discovery requests because they had been mailed to the wrong address. (9-19-22 Minute Order.) On October 6, 2022, defense counsel Mackey submitted a supplemental declaration clarifying that the meet and confer letters had been sent to the wrong address; however, discovery had been propounded on Plaintiff through his counsel on January 11, 2022, before he was relieved as counsel on March 24, 2022. (10-6-22 Mackey Decl. ¶¶ 2-4.)

The Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated that the form and special interrogatories were properly propounded on Plaintiff through his counsel and Plaintiff has not provided any responses. Defendant was not required to meet and confer with Plaintiff prior to filing the instant Motions and, thus, it is irrelevant that the meet and confer letters were mailed to a wrong address.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One.

B. Requests for Production

A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260(a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents is directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2024.020(a), 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

On January 11, 2022, Defendant propounded Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) on Plaintiff. (MTC RFP Mackey Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Responses were due on February 10, 2022. (MTC RFP p. 3.) Upon Plaintiff’s former counsel’s request, defense counsel extended the deadline for responses to the discovery requests once until March 14, 2022, and again, until April 13, 2022, given that Plaintiff’s former counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was pending in front of the Court. (MTC RFP – Mackey Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.) On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel was relieved from representing Plaintiff. (3-24-22 Minute Order.) On April 1, 2022, Defendant sent the discovery requests to the Plaintiff’s address, explaining in a letter in English that responses to the discovery requests were due on April 13, 2022. (MTC RFP – Mackey Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. B.) Defense counsel also sent a text message to Plaintiff’s phone number on April 13, and April 18, 2022, in English and in Spanish, regarding these discovery requests, but did not receive a response. (MTC RFP – Mackey Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.) Finally, on April 25, 2022, defense counsel mailed a letter in Spanish to Plaintiff’s address regarding the discovery requests. (MTC RFP – Mackey Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. C.) Plaintiff has not submitted any responses. (MTC RFP – Mackey Decl. ¶ 11.)

On September 19, 2022, the Court expressed concern regarding the service of the discovery requests because they had been mailed to the wrong address. (9-19-22 Minute Order.) On October 6, 2022, defense counsel Mackey submitted a supplemental declaration explaining that the meet and confer letters had been sent to the wrong address; however, discovery had been propounded on Plaintiff through service to his counsel on January 11, 2022, before he was relieved as counsel on March 24, 2022. (10-6-22 Mackey Decl. ¶¶ 2-4.)

Here, Defendant has demonstrated that a request for production of documents was propounded on Plaintiff and Plaintiff has not provided any responses.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.

C. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone because of that conduct. Misuse of discovery includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d)).

Defendant requests the following sanctions as to each Motion:

Defendant requests $435.00 in sanctions for the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) as follows: one (1) hour to research and draft the Motion, one (1) hour to attend the hearing on the Motion, and one (1) hour for travel to and from court, at a rate of $125.00 per hour, and a filing fee of $60. (MTC Form – Mackey Decl. ¶ 12.)

Defendant requests $435.00 in sanctions for the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) as follows: one (1) hour to research and draft the Motion, one (1) hour to attend the hearing on the Motion, and one (1) hour for travel to and from court, at a rate of $125.00 per hour, and a filing fee of $60. (MTC Special – Mackey Decl. ¶ 12.)

Defendant requests $435.00 in sanctions for the Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) as follows: one (1) hour to research and draft the Motion, one (1) hour to attend the hearing on the Motion, and one (1) hour for travel to and from court, at a rate of $125.00 per hour, and a filing fee of $60. (MTC Special – Mackey Decl. ¶ 12.)

Here, the Court grants all three Motions to Compel, so sanctions may be awarded. The Court also finds defense counsel’s request for sanctions as to each Motion to be reasonable and GRANTS sanctions for total amount of $1305.00.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $435.00 as to each Motion, for a total amount of $1,305.00.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.