Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC05934, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC05934     Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

                                    MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Ricardo Campos Ramirez

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff Oscar Noriega Beceril

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 94)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Ricardo Campos Ramirez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is DENIED.

Defendant Ricardo Campos Ramirez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents is DENIED .

Defendant Ricardo Campos Ramirez’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.

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 July 25, 2022.              [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of July 25, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff Oscar Noriega Beceril (“Plaintiff”) filed an action stemming from an automobile accident between Plaintiff and Defendant Ricardo Campos Ramirez (“Defendant”).  On March 28, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer denying all allegations in the Complaint.

On June 30, 2022, Defendant filed the two instant Motions – (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, (“Motion Re: Form Interrogatories”) and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“Motion Re: Request for Prod. of Docs.”).  No opposition was filed.  On July 19, 2022, Defendant filed Notices of Non-Opposition to both Motions.

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

A.     Form 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 March 31, 2022, Defendant propounded an initial set of written discovery, Form Interrogatories, Set One, upon Plaintiff.  (Mot. p. 9, Hong Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A.)  Responses to this request were due on May 5, 2022.  (Hong Decl. ¶ 6.)  On June 21, defense counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and requested that verified responses be submitted by June 24, 2022.  (Ibid at ¶ 8; Ex. B.)  As of the date of the Motion Re: Form Interrogatories, Defendant has not received any responses to the Form Interrogatories.  (Hong Decl. ¶ 9.)

The Court finds that it cannot rule on the instant Motions because Defendant’s discovery requests have exceeded what is permitted in a limited civil action.  In this case, Defendant propounded 24 Form Interrogatories and 13 Requests for Production to Plaintiff, totaling 37 requests.  (Motion Re Form Interrogatories, pp. 13-16, Ex. A; Motion Re: Request for Prod. of Docs., pp. 15-17, Ex. A.)  However, Code of Civil Procedure § 94(a) limits discovery in limited jurisdiction actions to “any combination of 35 of the following: interrogatories with no subparts…, demands to produce documents or things…, requests for admission with (no subparts).”  Defendant’s 37 requests exceed what is permitted in this limited civil action and the Court will not choose which requests to eliminate for Defendant’s discovery requests to come into compliance with the rule of 35.

For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is DENIED.

B.    Request for Production of Documents

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 March 31, 2022, Defendant propounded an initial set of written discovery, Request for Production, Set One, upon Plaintiff.  (Mot. p. 9, Hong Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A.)  Responses to this Request were due on May 5, 2022.  (Hong Decl. ¶ 6.).  On June 21, defense counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and requested that verified responses be submitted by June 24, 2022.  (Ibid at ¶ 8; Ex. B.)  As of the date of the Motion, Defendant has not received any responses to the Form Interrogatories.  (Hong Decl. ¶ 9.)

As discussed above, Defendant propounded 24 Form Interrogatories and 13 Requests for Production upon Plaintiff, totaling 37 requests.  (Motion Re Form Interrogatories, pp. 13-16, Ex. A; Motion Re: Request for Prod. of Docs., pp. 15-17, Ex. A.)  Since Defendant’s 37 discovery requests exceed the combination of 35 discovery requests permitted by Code of Civil Procedure § 94(a) in a limited civil action, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents is also DENIED.

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 as a result of that conduct.  A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d).)

Here, Defendant seeks $660.00 in sanctions for the Motion Re: Form Interrogatories – $400 in attorney’s fees (2 hours worked at $200 per hour) for preparing the Motion, $200 in appearance fees (1 hour at $200 per hour), and $60 in filing fees.  (Hong Decl. ¶ 11.)  Defendant also seeks $460.00 in sanctions for the Motion Re: Request for Production – $400 in attorney’s fees (2 hours worked at $200 per hour) for preparing the Motion and $60 in filing fees.  (Hong Decl. ¶ 11.) 

Given that Defendant’s instant discovery motions are denied, his request for sanctions is also DENIED.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

Defendant Ricardo Campos Ramirez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is DENIED.

Defendant Ricardo Campos Ramirez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents is DENIED.

Defendant Richard Campos Ramirez’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.