Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC08021, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC08021    Hearing Date: July 27, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2023.030)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 30 days of this ruling, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions, in the amount of $660.00 is also GRANTED.

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 July 22, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of July 22, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On November 9, 2021, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Brett Adam Framson, Jermal A. Phillips, and Laron Brown (collectively “Defendants”) for subrogation, stemming from an automobile accident between Defendants and Jeevesh Sood (“Insured”), an individual insured by Plaintiff’s automobile insurance policy.  Plaintiff compensated Insured for claimed damages in the amount of $15,729.44 and filed the instant claim against Defendants for allegedly causing the damages.  (Complaint pp. 2-3.)  On April 1, 2022, Plaintiff amended the Complaint to correct Defendant Phillips’s name to “Jermaine Anthony Phillips, Jr.”  (4-1-22 Amendment to Complaint.)

On January 14, 2022, Defendant Brett Framson filed an Answer.

On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories as to Defendant Framson (“Motion”).  No opposition was filed.

On July 11, 2022, default was entered as to Defendants Phillips and Brown.

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.    Motion to Compel

On January 17, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant Framson’s Counsel with Form Interrogatories, Set One, via email.  (Pillemer Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. 1.)  Following an extension, responses to the Form Interrogatories were due on March 11, 2022.  (Ibid. at ¶ 5; Ex. 2.)  Defendant Framson did not respond to the request, so on April 14, 2022, Plaintiff’s newly-retained Counsel sent a letter to Defendant’s Counsel via email, requesting that a response be submitted within ten days of the date of the email communication.  (Taylor Decl. ¶¶ 3-4; Ex. 2.)  Plaintiff’s Counsel sent another letter by email on May 3, 2022, requesting the responses within ten days of the second letter.  (Taylor Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Ex. 3.)  As of the date of the Motion, Plaintiff has not received any communication or response from Defendant Framson.  (Taylor Dec. ¶ 7.)

Since Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendant Framson has failed to respond to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, as of the date of the Motion, well beyond the 30-day deadline, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.

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 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).)

Here, Plaintiff requests $660.00 in sanctions for 2.0 hours in drafting the instant Motion and attending the hearing on the matter, at an hourly rate of $300.00 per hour, in addition to filing fees in the amount of $60.00.  (Taylor Decl. ¶ 8.) 

The Court finds Plaintiff’s request to be reasonable.  Since the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is granted, the request for sanctions is also GRANTED. 

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 30 days of this ruling, is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $660.00 is also GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.