Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC01114, Date: 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC01114    Hearing Date: August 1, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant DDS Wood Working, Inc.

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant/Cross-Complainant Wendy Chan

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(CCP §§ 2030.010, 2030.290, 2031.300, 94)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant DDS Wood Working, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is DENIED.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant DDS Wood Working, Inc.’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:          Filed on July 19, 2022.                                     [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     Filed on July 22, 2022.                                    [   ] Late                      [   ] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On February 9, 2021, Plaintiff DDS Wood Working Inc., a California corporation (“Plaintiff” or “DDS”) filed an action against Wendy Chan (“Defendant” or “Chan”) for 1) breach of contract, 2) open book account, 3) common count for service and material provided, and 4) account stated.  The action arose out of a remodeling agreement entered into by Plaintiff and Defendant.  (Compl. ¶ 7.)

On August 3, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer denying all allegations in the Complaint.  Subsequently, on August 5, 2021, Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant for breach of contract.  On November 1, 2021, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed an Answer denying all the allegations in the Cross-Complaint.

On July 1, 2022, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery[1] (the “Motion”), compelling Defendant/Cross-Complainant to serve responses to 1) form interrogatories, set one, 2) special interrogatories, set one, 3) requests for admission, set one, and 4) request for production of documents, set one.  (Motion pp. 2-3.)  Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant also sought $1,410.00 in sanctions.  (Ibid. at 3.)  On July 19, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Complainant filed an Opposition to the Motion stating that the discovery responses were served on July 11, 2022, making the Motion moot.  (Opposition p. 3.)  On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed a Reply reaffirming its entitlement to sanctions for making the Motion.

II.              Legal Standard

A.     Special and 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.)

B.    Requests for Admission

Under Code of Civil Procedure 2033.280(b), failure to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner allows the requesting party to “move for an order that…the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted” by the party that failed to respond.  The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court, “unless [the court] finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c)).

C.    Requests 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.)

D. 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)).

Furthermore, courts are obligated to impose monetary sanctions in cases where a “failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (Ibid.)  Sanctions are calculated based on “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”  (Ibid. § 2023.030(a)).

III.            Discussion

The Court finds several problems with this Motion.

First, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant has filed several discovery motions under the guise of a single Motion to Compel Discovery.  The Court Reservation System requires a separate hearing date reservation and filing fees for each discovery motion.  Filing several discovery motions in a single Motion to Compel Discovery circumvents the Court’s requirements.

Second, the hearing for the Motion is set for August 1, 2022, eight (8) days before trial set for August 9, 2022.  Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.020(a), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.”  When a party notices a discovery motion and sets the hearing after the discovery motion cut-off date, the party does not have a right to have the motion heard.  (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 1568, 1588 [holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to hear a motion to compel discovery responses after the motion cutoff date].)  Additionally, § 2024.020(b) states “[e]xcept as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.”  In this case, motions concerning discovery should have been heard on or before July 25, 2022, fifteen (15) days before trial.

Third, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant has greatly exceeded the number of discovery requests that are permitted in a limited civil action.  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).”

There are other deficiencies in the Motion; however, the Court finds that the deficiencies listed above are sufficient to DENY the Motion.

Given that the instant discovery motion is denied, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant DDS Wood Working, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is DENIED.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant DDS Wood Working, Inc.’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.