Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 21STLC07905 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC07905, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC07905 Hearing Date: October 13, 2022 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES FORM INTERROGATORIES, DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Charly Okpara

RESP. PARTY: Defendant Levi D. Gomez Rodriguez (did not respond)

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 94)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Charly Okpara’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Admissions, Set One, directed to Defendant Levi D. Gomez Rodriguez, is DENIED.

Plaintiff Charly Okpara’s request for sanctions is 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 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On November 3, 2021, Plaintiff Charly Okpara (“Plaintiff”) filed an action stemming from a car accident between Plaintiff and Defendants Edi Mauricio Gomez Leon (“Gomez Leon”) and Levi D. Gomez Rodriguez (Gomez Rodriguez”) (collectively, “Defendants”). On January 5, 2022, each Defendant filed an answer.

On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Admissions, Set One (“Motion”), directed to Defendant Gomez Rodriguez. No opposition was filed.

II. Legal Standards

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.)

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.)

C. 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)).

III. Discussion

The Court finds that it cannot rule on the instant Motion because Plaintiff’s discovery requests have exceeded what is permitted in a limited civil action. In this case, Plaintiff propounded 21 Form Interrogatories, 13 Requests for Production to Plaintiff, and 7 Request to Admit, totaling 42 requests. (Mot., 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).” Plaintiff’s 42 requests exceed what is permitted in this limited civil action and the Court will not choose which requests to eliminate for Plaintiff’s discovery requests to come into compliance with the rule of 35.

In addition, Plaintiff has filed several discovery motions under the guise of a single Motion to Compel. The Court Reservation System requires a separate hearing date reservation and filing fee for each discovery motion. Filing several discovery motions in a single motion to compel circumvents the Court’s requirements and allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal. App. 4^th 457, 460; Govt. Code Section 70617(a)). Here, Plaintiff paid one filing fee for what should have been three separate motions.

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).)

Given that Plaintiff’s Motion is denied, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

Plaintiff Charly Okpara’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Admissions, Set One, to Defendant Levi D. Gomez Rodriguez is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.