Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC05320, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC05320     Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES;

                                    REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Minerva Sanchez

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES; MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Minerva Sanchez’s Motions to Compel are continued to JUNE 22, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25.  At least 16 days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the errors discussed herein.  Failure to do so may result in the Motions being placed off calendar or denied. 

SERVICE: 

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

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK/NO

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

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of May 15, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of May 15, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On July 20, 2021, Plaintiff Josefina Vega (“Plaintiff’) filed an action for negligence against defendant Minerva Sanchez (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 22, 2021 and Defendant filed an answer on October 4, 2021. 

On December 1, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel.

On April 19, 2023, Defendant filed two motions:  (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Josefina Vega’s Verified Responses to Defendant’s Supplemental Demand and Inspection of Documents, Set One, and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Josefina Vega’s Verified Responses to Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One. 

No opposition has been filed. 

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

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.)

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.)

Defendant seeks a court order compelling Plaintiff’s verified responses to supplemental interrogatories and supplemental requests for production of documents, served on Plaintiff on December 13, 2022 (Mot., Manesh Decl. ¶ 1.)

The Court, however, has no knowledge of how many interrogatories or document requests were served previously.   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).”  The Court hereby continues the Motions so that Defendant can submit evidence as to whether she is within the rule of 35 or has exceeded the number of requests allowed in a limited civil action.

In addition, Defendant served the Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff by email only.  (Mot., Proof of Service, 4/19/23).  Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6 authorizes service of documents by electronic service (service by e-mail) in certain enumerated circumstances.  Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6(a)(2)(A)(ii) provides, “[f]or cases filed on or after January 1, 2019, if a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission, electronic service of the document is authorized” only: (1) “if a party . . . has expressly consented to receive electronic service in that specific action”, (2) “if . . . the court has ordered electronic service on a represented party or other represented person under subdivision (c) or (d)”, or (3) “if . . . the document is served electronically pursuant to the procedures specified in subdivision (e)”, that is, electronic service is made upon a party who is represented by counsel.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6(a)(2)(A)(ii), (c), (d), (e).)

Defendant cannot serve Plaintiff electronically unless Plaintiff has expressly consented to receive electronic service.  Accordingly, Defendant will have to properly serve Plaintiff.  

For these reasons, Defendant’s Motions to Compel Discovery Responses are CONTINUED as set forth below.

A.    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)).

Given that the instant Motions are continued, Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are also continued.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Defendant’s (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Josefina Vega’s Verified Responses to Defendant’s Supplemental Demand and Inspection of Documents, Set One, and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Josefina Vega’s Verified Responses to Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One are CONTINUED TO JUNE 22, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in DEPARTMENT 25.  At least 16 days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the errors discussed herein.  Failure to do so may result in the Motions being placed off calendar or denied. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.