Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC05983, Date: 2022-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC05983     Hearing Date: September 26, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE)

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff 21^st Century Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff 21^st Century Insurance Co.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff 21^st Century Insurance Co.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED.

Defendant Erika Arcos is ordered to submit verified responses, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $310.00 as to each Motion to Compel, for a total of $620.00 to be paid by Defendant Arcos to Plaintiff’s counsel within ten (10) 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:          None filed as of September 21, 2022.         [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of September 21, 2022.                     [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On August 16, 2021, Plaintiff 21^st Century Insurance Company filed an action against Defendants Erika Arcos (“Arcos”) and Ofelia Ochoa Jimenez (“Jimenez”), (collectively “Defendants”) arising out of an alleged automobile accident that took place on July 28, 2019.

Defendant Arcos, in propria persona, filed an Answer on September 24, 2021, and Defendant Jimenez, through counsel, filed an Answer on July 28, 2022.

On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed the two instant Motions as to Defendant Arcos:

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

(2)   Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (“MTC RPD”).

No opposition was 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 May 9, 2022, Plaintiff propounded an initial set of Form Interrogatories, on Defendant Arcos.  (MTC Form – Sarrail Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.)  On June 7, 2022, Defendant Jimenez’s counsel’s paralegal requested an extension via email, which Plaintiff’s counsel granted.  (Ibid. at ¶ 4.)  Another two-week extension was requested and granted.  (Ibid.; Ex. B.)  On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant Jimenez’s counsel that she intended to file a motion to compel if responses were not received by July 15, 2022.  (Ibid. at ¶ 5.)  On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel mailed a letter directly to Defendant Arcos because Defendant Jimenez’s counsel had not been formally substituted in, requesting responses by August 5, 2022.  (Ibid. at ¶ 6; Ex. C.)  On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel informed defense counsel of her intention to proceed with the motion to compel.  (Ibid. at ¶ 7; Ex. B.)  As of the date of the Motion, no responses had been submitted.  (Ibid. at ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has propounded form interrogatories on Defendant and Defendant has not provided any responses despite several extensions.  Although Plaintiff was not obligated to meet and confer with Defendant, Plaintiff’s counsel has made attempts to resolve the issue informally.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Arcos’s Responses to Form 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 May 9, 2022, Plaintiff propounded an initial set of Requests for Production, on Defendant Arcos.  (MTC RPD – Sarrail Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.)  On June 7, 2022, Defendant Jimenez’s counsel’s paralegal requested an extension via email, which Plaintiff’s counsel granted.  (Ibid. at ¶ 4.)  Another two-week extension was requested and granted.  (Ibid.; Ex. B.)  On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant Jimenez’s counsel that she intended to file a motion to compel if responses were not received by July 15, 2022.  (Ibid. at ¶ 5.)  On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel mailed a letter directly to Defendant Arcos because counsel had not been formally substituted in, requesting responses by August 5, 2022.  (Ibid. at ¶ 6; Ex. C.)  On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant Jimenez’s counsel of her intention to proceed with the motion to compel.  (Ibid. at ¶ 7; Ex. B.)  As of the date of the Motion, no responses had been submitted.  (Ibid. at ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has propounded requests for production on Defendant and Defendant has not provided any responses despite several extensions.  Although Plaintiff was not obligated to meet and confer with Defendant, Plaintiff’s counsel has made attempts to resolve the issue informally.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Arcos’s Responses to Requests 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)).

Plaintiff requests the following sanctions as to each Motion:

Plaintiff requests $685.00 in sanctions for the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories as follows: five (5) hours in attorney’s fees, at a rate of $125.00 per hour, that includes three (3) hours in propounding discovery, following-up attempts, and preparation of the instant Motion, and two (2) hours for appearance in the matter, and a filing fee of $60.  (MTC Form – Sarrail Decl. ¶ 9.)

Plaintiff requests $685.00 in sanctions for the Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production as follows: five (5) hours in attorney’s fees, at a rate of $125.00 per hour, that includes three (3) hours in propounding discovery, following-up attempts, and preparation of the instant Motion, and two (2) hours for appearance in the matter, and a filing fee of $60.  (MTC RPD – Sarrail Decl. ¶ 9.)

Here, the Court grants both Motions to Compel.  However, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request to be excessive and does not grant attorney’s fees for propounding discovery or Plaintiff’s follow-up attempts.  The Court grants Plaintiff $310.00 for each Motion as follows: one and a half (1.5) hours for preparation of each Motion, one-half (0.5) hour for the appearance for each motion, and a filing fee of $60.00 for each motion, for a total of $620.00.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

Plaintiff 21^st Century Insurance Co.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff 21^st Century Insurance Co.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED.

Defendant Erika Arcos is ordered to submit verified responses, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $310.00 as to each Motion to Compel, for a total of $620.00, to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel by Defendant Arcos within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.