Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC00575, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STLC00575 Hearing Date: October 3, 2022 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE)
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ted Wass
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300)
TENTATIVE RULING:
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Avi Amar’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Avi Amar’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Avi Amar’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.
Plaintiff Avi Amar is ordered to submit verified responses, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.
The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for $497.50 in sanctions as to each Motion to Compel, for a total of $1492.50.
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 19, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as of September 19, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I. Background
On January 27, 2022, Plaintiffs Avi Amar (“Avi”) and Alisa Amar (“Alisa”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed an action against Defendant Ted Wass (“Defendant”) arising out of a motor vehicle accident between Plaintiffs, on one hand, and Defendant, on the other hand, which allegedly took place on January 7, 2022.
On May 11, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer, as well as a Cross-Complaint against Moes 1 through 25 for (1) breach of written contract, (2) express indemnity, (3) total equitable indemnity, (4) partial equitable indemnity, (5) contribution and repayment, (6) declaratory relief, and (7) negligence.
On June 29, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Responses of Plaintiff Avi Amar to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One) and a Motion to Deem Requests for Admission (Set One), propounded on Plaintiff Avi Amar, Admitted. On August 17, 2022, the Court denied the Motion to Compel because Defendant impermissibly filed three motions in a joint motion. (8-17-22 Minute Order.) On September 20, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Deem Requests Admitted. (9-20-22 Minute Order.)
On September 2, 2022, Defendant filed the three instant Motions as to Plaintiff Avi Amar:
(1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) (“MTC Form”) (scheduled for hearing on November 1, 2022);
(2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“MTC Special”) (scheduled for hearing on November 1, 2022);
(3) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (“MTC RPD”) (scheduled for hearing on October 3, 2022).
No opposition was filed.
II. Legal Standard & Discussion
A. Form and Special 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 April 21, 2022, Defendant propounded an initial set of written discovery, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff Avi Amar. (MTC Form – Sandler Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A; MTC Special – Sandler Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. B.) Responses were due on May 27, 2022; however, Defendant did not receive any communication from Plaintiff Avi. (MTC Form – Sandler Decl. ¶ 3; MTC Special – Sandler Decl. ¶ 3.) On June 6, 2022, defense counsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel and asked Plaintiff to submit responses by June 15, 2022. (MTC Form – Sandler Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. D; MTC Special – Sandler Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. D.) Defendant did not receive any responses to the discovery requests, so defense counsel again sent correspondence to Plaintiff Avi’s counsel, asking for responses to the discovery requests by June 27, 2022. (MTC Form – Sandler Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. E; MTC Special – Sandler Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. E.) As of the date of this Motion, Defendant has not received any responses or communication to the discovery requests. (MTC Form – Sandler Decl. ¶ 6; MTC Special – Sandler Decl. ¶ 6.)
Here, Defendant has demonstrated that he has propounded form and special interrogatories on on Plaintiff Avi Amar and Plaintiff has not provided any responses or communicated with Defendant regarding further extensions. Although Defendant was not obligated to meet and confer with Plaintiff, he has made attempts to resolve the issue informally.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Avi Amar’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.
The Court also GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Avi Amar’s Responses to Special 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 April 21, 2022, Defendant propounded an initial set of written discovery, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on Plaintiff Avi Amar. (MTC RPD – Sandler Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. C.) Responses were due on May 27, 2022; however, Defendant did not receive any communication from Plaintiff Avi. (MTC RPD – Sandler Decl. ¶ 3.) On June 6, 2022, defense counsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel and asked Plaintiff to submit responses by June 15, 2022. (MTC RPD – Sandler Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. D.) Defendant did not receive any responses to the discovery requests, so defense counsel again sent correspondence to Plaintiff Avi’s counsel, asking for responses to the discovery requests by June 27, 2022. (MTC RPD – Sandler Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. E.) As of the date of this Motion, Defendant has not received any responses or communication regarding the discovery requests. (MTC RPD – Sandler Decl. ¶ 6.)
Here, Defendant has demonstrated that he has propounded requests for production of documents on Plaintiff Avi Amar and Plaintiff has not provided any responses or communicated with Defendant regarding further extensions. Although Defendant was not obligated to meet and confer with Plaintiff, he has made attempts to resolve the issue informally.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Avi Amar’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)).
Defendant requests the following sanctions as to each Motion:
Defendant requests $497.50 in sanctions for Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) as follows: two (2) hours to prepare the Motion and half an hour (0.5) to attend the hearing on the Motion, at a rate of $175 per hour, and a filing fee of $60. (MTC Form – Sandler Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)
Defendant requests $497.50 in sanctions for Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) as follows: two (2) hours to prepare the Motion and half an hour (0.5) to attend the hearing on the Motion, at a rate of $175 per hour, and a filing fee of $60. (MTC Special – Sandler Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)
Defendant requests $497.50 in sanctions for Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) as follows: two (2) hours to prepare the Motion and half an hour (0.5) to attend the hearing on the Motion, at a rate of $175 per hour, and a filing fee of $60. (MTC RPD – Sandler Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)
Here, the Court grants all three Motions to Compel. The Court also finds Defendant’s request as to each Motion to be reasonable. Therefore, Defendant’s request for $497.50 in sanctions as to each Motion to Compel is GRANTED, for a total of $1492.50.
III. Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons:
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Avi Amar’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Avi Amar’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Avi Amar’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.
Plaintiff Avi Amar is ordered to submit verified responses, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.
The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for $497.50 in sanctions as to each Motion to Compel, for a total of $1492.50.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
(SET ONE), AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE)
MOVING PARTY: Defendant
Ted Wass
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300)
TENTATIVE RULING:
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff Alisa Amar’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff Alisa Amar’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff Alisa Amar’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set
One.
Plaintiff Alisa Amar is ordered to submit verified
responses, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.
The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for
$497.50 in sanctions as to each Motion to Compel, for a total of $1492.50.
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
19, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as
of September 19, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On January 27, 2022, Plaintiffs Avi
Amar (“Avi”) and Alisa Amar (“Alisa”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed an
action against Defendant Ted Wass (“Defendant”) arising out of a motor vehicle
accident between Plaintiffs, on one hand, and Defendant, on the other hand,
which allegedly took place on January 7, 2022.
On May 11, 2022, Defendant filed an
Answer, as well as a Cross-Complaint against Moes 1 through 25 for (1) breach
of written contract, (2) express indemnity, (3) total equitable indemnity, (4) partial
equitable indemnity, (5) contribution and repayment, (6) declaratory relief,
and (7) negligence.
On June 29, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel
Responses of Plaintiff Alisa Amar to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special
Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One) and a Motion
to Deem Requests for Admission (Set One), propounded on Plaintiff Alisa Amar,
Admitted. On August 18, 2022, the Court
denied the Motion to Compel because Defendant impermissibly filed three motions
in a joint motion. (8-18-22 Minute
Order.) However, on the same day, the Court
granted Defendant’s Motion to Deem Requests Admitted. (Ibid.)
On September 2, 2022, Defendant filed the instant three
Motions as to Plaintiff Alisa Amar:
(1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form
Interrogatories (Set One) (“MTC Form”) (scheduled for hearing on October 4,
2022);
(2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special
Interrogatories (Set One) (“MTC Special”) (scheduled for hearing on October 4,
2022);
(3) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests
for Production of Documents (“MTC RPD”) (scheduled for hearing on October 3,
2022).
No opposition was filed.
II.
Legal
Standard & Discussion
A. Form and Special 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 April 21, 2022, Defendant propounded an initial set of
written discovery, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories,
Set One, on Plaintiff Alisa Amar. (MTC
Form – Sandler Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A; MTC Special – Sandler Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. B.) Responses were due on May 27, 2022; however,
Defendant did not receive any communication from Plaintiff Alisa. (MTC Form – Sandler Decl. ¶ 3; MTC Special –
Sandler Decl. ¶ 3.) On June 6, 2022,
defense counsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel and asked
Plaintiff to submit responses by June 15, 2022.
(MTC Form – Sandler Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. D; MTC Special – Sandler Decl. ¶ 4,
Ex. D.) Defendant did not receive any
responses to the discovery requests, so defense counsel again sent
correspondence to Plaintiff Alisa’s counsel, asking for responses to the
discovery requests by June 27, 2022.
(MTC Form – Sandler Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. E; MTC Special – Sandler Decl. ¶ 5,
Ex. E.) As of the date of this Motion,
Defendant has not received any responses or communication to the discovery
requests. (MTC Form – Sandler Decl. ¶ 6;
MTC Special – Sandler Decl. ¶ 6.)
Here, Defendant has demonstrated that he has propounded form
and special interrogatories on Plaintiff Alisa Amar and Plaintiff has not
provided any responses or communicated with Defendant regarding further
extensions. Although Defendant was not
obligated to meet and confer with Plaintiff, he has made attempts to resolve
the issue informally.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff
Alisa Amar’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.
The Court also GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff Alisa Amar’s Responses to Special 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 April 21, 2022, Defendant propounded an initial set of
written discovery, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on Plaintiff Alisa
Amar. (MTC RPD – Sandler Decl. ¶ 2, Ex.
C.) Responses were due on May 27, 2022;
however, Defendant did not receive any communication from Plaintiff Alisa. (MTC RPD – Sandler Decl. ¶ 3.) On June 6, 2022, defense counsel attempted to
meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel and asked Plaintiff to submit
responses by June 15, 2022. (MTC RPD –
Sandler Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. D.) Defendant did
not receive any responses to the discovery requests, so defense counsel again
sent correspondence to Plaintiff Alisa’s counsel, asking for responses to the
discovery requests by June 27, 2022.
(MTC RPD – Sandler Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. E.) As of the date of this Motion, Defendant has
not received any responses or communication to the discovery requests. (MTC RPD – Sandler Decl. ¶ 6.)
Here, Defendant has demonstrated that he has propounded requests
for production on Plaintiff Alisa Amar and Plaintiff has not provided any
responses or communicated with Defendant regarding further extensions. Although Defendant was not obligated to meet
and confer with Plaintiff, he has made attempts to resolve the issue
informally.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff Alisa Amar’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)).
Defendant requests the following
sanctions as to each Motion:
Defendant requests $497.50 in
sanctions for Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) as
follows: two (2) hours to prepare the Motion and half an hour (0.5) to attend
the hearing on the Motion, at a rate of $175 per hour, and a filing fee of
$60. (MTC Form – Sandler Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)
Defendant requests $497.50 in
sanctions for Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
as follows: two (2) hours to prepare the Motion and half an hour (0.5) to
attend the hearing on the Motion, at a rate of $175 per hour, and a filing fee
of $60. (MTC Special – Sandler Decl. ¶¶
7-8.)
Defendant requests $497.50 in
sanctions for Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of
Documents (Set One) as follows: two (2) hours to prepare the Motion and half an
hour (0.5) to attend the hearing on the Motion, at a rate of $175 per hour, and
a filing fee of $60. (MTC RPD – Sandler
Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)
Here, the Court grants all three
Motions to Compel. The Court also finds
Defendant’s request as to each Motion to be reasonable. Therefore, Defendant’s request for $497.50 in
sanctions as to each Motion to Compel is GRANTED, for a total of $1492.50.
III.
Conclusion
& Order
For the foregoing reasons:
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff Alisa Amar’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff Alisa Amar’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Wass’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff Alisa Amar’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set
One.
Plaintiff Alisa Amar is ordered to submit verified
responses, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.
The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for
$497.50 in sanctions as to each Motion to Compel, for a total of $1492.50.
Moving party is ordered to give
notice.