Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 21STLC08458 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND DEMAND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

Plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. London’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. London’s Motion to Compel Responses to Demand to Produce Documents (Set One) is DENIED without prejudice.

On November 29, 2021, Plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. London (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Jake Lawrence Udell (“Defendant”) for conversion and money had and received. On March 8, 2022, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Determine Requests for Admissions of Facts and Genuineness of Documents Deemed Admitted (“Motion”). On December 5, 2022, the Court granted the Motion and Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $340.00. (12-5-22 Minute Order.)

1) Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“MTC Special”)[1];

2) Motion to Compel Responses to Demand to Produce Documents (Set One) (“MTC DPD”).

On October 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed proof that Defendant had been served with the moving papers by electronic transmission. On November 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed proof that Defendant had also been served with the moving papers by mail.

On December 8, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the instant Motions to allow Plaintiff additional time to re-serve Defendant with the Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Demand to Produce Documents (Set One), as the discovery requests had been improperly served. (12-8-22 Minute Order.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed additional documents.

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.)

Here, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories (Set One), on Defendant on May 9, 2022. (Sperling Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. A.) Verified responses were due by June 13, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 3.) On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant and asked for responses to the discovery propounded on Defendant by July 22, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 4; Ex. B.) As of the date of filing the instant Motion, Defendant has not provided any responses. (Ibid. at ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has properly served Defendant with the moving papers and Defendant has failed to respond to the Special Interrogatories. However, on December 8, 2022, the Court noted that although the follow-up letter and the moving papers were served by mail, the Special Interrogatories were improperly served on the self-represented Defendant by electronic mail in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6. (12-8-22 Minute Order; MTC Special p. 14.) For this reason, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion, and ordered Plaintiff to properly serve the Special Interrogatories on Defendant and report to the Court whether Defendant provided responses within the statutorily required period. (12-8-22 Minute Order.)

Since the Court Order, issued on December 8, 2022, Plaintiff has not submitted any supplemental papers to the Court. Thus, the Court cannot determine whether Defendant has been properly served with the Special Interrogatories.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is DENIED.

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.)

Here, Plaintiff served Demand to Produce Documents (Set One), on Defendant on May 9, 2022. (Sperling Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. A.) Verified responses were due by June 13, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 3.) On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant and asked for responses to the discovery propounded on Defendant by July 22, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 4; Ex. B.) As of the date of filing the instant Motion, Defendant has not provided any responses. (Ibid. at ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has properly served Defendant with the moving papers and Defendant has failed to respond to the Demand to Produce Documents. However, on December 8, 2022, the Court noted that although the follow-up letter and the moving papers were served by mail, the Demand to Produce Documents was improperly served on the self-represented Defendant by electronic mail in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6. (12-8-22 Minute Order; MTC DPD p. 15.) For this reason, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion, and ordered Plaintiff to properly serve the Demand to Produce Documents on Defendant and report to the Court whether Defendant provided responses within the statutorily required period. (12-8-22 Minute Order.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Demand to Produce Documents is DENIED.

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 sanctions in the amount of $760.00 for the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) as follows: attorney’s fees at a rate for $280.00 per hour for 1.5 hours of preparing the Motion, 1 hour to appear at the hearing, and $60 in filing fees. (Sperling Decl. ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $280.00 for the Motion to Compel Responses to Demand to Produce Documents (Set One) as follows: attorney’s fees at a rate for $280.00 per hour for 1 hour of preparing the Motion and $60 in filing fees. (Sperling Decl. ¶ 7.)

Given that both Motions are DENIED, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.

Plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. London’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. London’s Motion to Compel Responses to Demand to Produce Documents (Set One) is DENIED without prejudice.

[1] The heading of the Motion incorrectly states that Plaintiff seeks responses to Form Interrogatories, while the rest of the Motion addresses Special Interrogatories.