Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC05357, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC05357     Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Silvestre Barraza

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(CCP §§ 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court GRANTS Defendant Barraza’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Rodriguez’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.  Plaintiff Rodriguez’s is ordered to submit verified responses, without objections, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.  The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $412.50, to be paid by Plaintiff only within twenty (20) days notice of this order.

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 November 15, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of January 3, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On July 21, 2021, Plaintiff Leonardo Jose Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Silvestre Barraza (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle and general negligence arising out of an alleged automobile accident that took place on July 21, 2019.

On November 23, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On October 25, 2022, Defendant filed the following Motions:

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

(2)   Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents (“MTC RFP”).

On November 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to both Motions.

On November 30, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Rodriguez’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One.  (11-30-22 Minute Order.). The Court ordered Plaintiff Rodriguez to submit verified responses, without objections, within twenty (20) days of notice of the Court order and to pay sanctions in the amount of $530.00.  (Ibid.)

On the same day, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories to allow Defendant additional time to correct deficiencies in the Motion.  (Ibid.)

On December 7, 2022, based on the Stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the trial date to May 10, 2023, along with all corresponding discovery and pre-trial dates.  (12-7-22 Stipulation and Order.)

On December 9, 2022, Defendant filed an Amended Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions (“Amended Motion”).  No opposition has been filed.

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 November 30, 2022, the Court noted that the Notice of Motion contained conflicting information regarding the date of hearing on the Motion, listing both November 30, 2022, and January 18, 2023, as the hearing date.  (11-30-22 Minute Order; MTC Form p. 1.)  Moreover, Counsel Grandy’s Declaration stated that Plaintiff was served with a Request for Production of Documents, although Defendant was seeking to compel responses to form interrogatories through the instant Motion.  (11-30-22 Minute Order, Grandy Decl. ¶ 2.)  For these reasons, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion and ordered Defendant to correct these deficiencies.  (11-30-22 Minute Order.)

On December 9, 2022, Defendant filed an Amended Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions (“Amended Motion”).  The Court notes that Defendant has corrected the date of hearing on the Amended Notice and clarified the relief sought.  (Am. Mot.)

On December 2, 2021, Defendant propounded an initial set of discovery, Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff.  (Am. Mot. - Grandy Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)  Responses were due on January 5, 2022.  (Ibid.)  According to defense counsel, “[o]n March 24, 2022, Plaintiff served unverified and incomplete responses to Defendant’s discovery request.”  (Ibid. at ¶ 3, Ex. B.)  Defense counsel provided Plaintiff’s counsel with several extensions to respond to the meet and confer letter and serve verified responses.  (Ibid. at ¶ 4, Ex. D.)  As of the date of the instant Motion, Plaintiff has not provided verifications for the responses to the discovery.  (Ibid. at ¶ 5.)  Defendant states that his “ability to prepare this case for trial or evaluate the case for settlement is severely hindered by the insufficient written discovery responses.”  (Ibid. at ¶ 6.)

Here, Defendant has demonstrated that he has propounded form interrogatories on Plaintiff.  Although Plaintiff’s counsel has provided unverified responses, unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all.  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36.)

For this reason, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

B.    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 $882.00 in sanctions for the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) as follows: attorney’s fees billed at a rate of $235.00 per hour for two (2) hours for preparing the instant Motion and one and a half (1.5) hours to review Plaintiff’s opposition, draft a reply, and attend the hearing, and a motion fee of $60.00.  (Am. Mot. – Grandy Decl. ¶ 8.)

The Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and thus, sanctions are appropriate.  However, Defendant’s request for $882.00 is unreasonable and thus, the Court grants sanctions as follows: attorney’s fees at a billing rate of $235.00 per hour for one (1) hour of preparing the instant Motion and (0.5) hour of appearing at the hearing, plus $60 in motion fees, for a total of $412.50, to be paid by Plaintiff only.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

The Court GRANTS Defendant Barraza’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Rodriguez’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.  Plaintiff Rodriguez’s is ordered to submit verified responses, without objections, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.  The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $412.50, to be paid by Plaintiff only within twenty (20) days notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.