Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC01627, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC01627     Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES;

                                    REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Matthew Chait, et al.

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Matthew Chait, et al.’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is also 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 filed as of January 11, 2023.                     [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of January 11, 2023.                     [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On March 11, 2022, Plaintiffs Matthew Chait (“Chait”) and Lauren Sandidge (“Sandidge”), (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed an action for breach of contract against Marda G. Malm as Trustee of the Malm Family Trust (“Malm”).

On April 28, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On December 21, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (“Motion”).  Plaintiffs also seek sanctions in the amount of $1,110.00.  (Mot. p. 2.)

No opposition has been filed.

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 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.)

Plaintiffs seek a court order compelling Defendant’s response to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents, served on Defendant on August 15, 2022.  (Mot. p. 2.)

The Court notes that Plaintiffs have impermissibly filed three separate motions as a single motion.  Combining discovery motions 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. 4th 457,460; Govt. Code § 70617(a).)  Here, Plaintiffs paid a single filing fee for what should have been three separate motions.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ discovery requests have exceeded what is permitted in a limited civil action.  In this case, Plaintiffs propounded 31 form interrogatories, 13 special interrogatories, and 9 requests for production, totaling 53 requests.  (Nielsen Decl. ¶ 2, Exs. 1-3.)  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).”  Plaintiffs’ 53 requests exceed what is permitted in this limited civil action and the Court will not choose which requests to eliminate for Plaintiffs’ discovery requests to come into compliance with the rule of 35.

For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is DENIED.

A.    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)).

Given that the instant Motion is denied, Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is also DENIED.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Plaintiffs Matthew Chait, et al.’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is also DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.