Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC03966, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STLC03966 Hearing Date: March 22, 2023 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AGAINST DEFENDANT
BENITA GUTIERREZ
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, AGAINST DEFENDANT BENITA GUTIERREZ
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AGAINST DEFENDANT BENITA GUTIERREZ
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Rose Huong Duong
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 94, 2023.010, 2023.030, 2017.010, etc.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Rose Huong Duong’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One, as to Defendant Gutierrez is DENIED.
Plaintiff Rose Huong Duong’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, as to Defendant Gutierrez is DENIED.
Plaintiff Rose Huong Duong’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, as to Defendant Gutierrez is DENIED.
Plaintiff Rose Huong Duong’s 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 March 16, 2023 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as of March 16, 2023 [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I. Background
On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff Rose Huong Duong (“Plaintiff”) filed an action stemming from an automobile accident between Plaintiff and Defendants Benita Gutierrez (“Gutierrez”) and Hermilo Hernandez Tejada (“Tejada”). On August 17, 2022, Defendants filed an Answer denying all allegations in the Complaint.
On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant three motions – (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One, (“Motion Re: Interrogatories”), (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One (“RFA Motion”), and (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“Motion Re: Documents”). All three motions were directed to Defendant Gutierrez. No oppositions were filed.
II. Legal Standard & Discussion
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.)
On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff propounded an initial set of written discovery, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, upon Defendant Gutierrez. (Mot. Re: Interrogatories; Le Decl.¶ 3, Exhs. A & B.) Responses to these requests were due on September 12, 2022. (Id.) On September 26, October 6, October 13, 2022 and February 6 and 8, 2023, Plaintiff’s staff reached out to ask about the overdue responses. (Id at ¶ 4; Ex. C.) As of the date of the Motion Re: Interrogatories, Plaintiff has not received any responses to the Form or Special Interrogatories. (Id.)
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.)
On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff propounded an initial set of written discovery, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, upon Defendant Gutierrez. (Mot. Re: Documents, p. 3; Le Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Responses to this Request were due on September 12, 2022. (Le Decl. ¶ 3.). Plaintiff’s counsel reached out to Defendant’s counsel several times but, as of the date of the Motion Re: Documents, Plaintiff has not received any responses to the Request for Production of Documents. (Le Decl. ¶ 4.)
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)). By failing to timely respond, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2033.280(a).)
Here, Plaintiff propounded a set of Requests for Admission on Defendant Gutierrez on August 10, 2022. (RFA Mot., p.4; Le Decl. ¶ 3). Like the other discovery requests, no responses were forthcoming. (Id. at ¶ 4). As of the date of the RFA Motion, no responses were received. (Id.)
ANALYSIS
The Court finds that it cannot rule on the instant Motions because Plaintiff’s discovery requests have exceeded what is permitted in a limited civil action. In this case, Plaintiff propounded 40 Form Interrogatories and 15 Special Interrogatories to Defendant Gutierrez, totaling 55 requests. (Motion Re Interrogatories, Exhs. A &B). In addition, Plaintiff has propounded 8 Requests for Admission and 11 Requests for Production of Documents. (RFA Mot., Exh. A; Mot. Re: Documents, Exh. 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 74 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.
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Productions of Documents are all DENIED.
D. 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).)
Because all of Plaintiff’s Motions were denied, Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are also DENIED.
III. Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons:
Plaintiff Duong’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One, is DENIED.
Plaintiff Duong’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, is DENIED.
Plaintiff Duong’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is DENIED.
Plaintiff Duong’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES,
SET ONE, AGAINST DEFENDANT
MOTION
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, AGAINST DEFENDANT HERMILO
HERNANDEZ TEJADA
MOTION
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AGAINST
DEFENDANT HERMILO HERNANDEZ TEJADA
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff
Rose Huong Duong
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 94, 2023.010, 2023.030, 2017.010, etc.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff
Rose Huong Duong’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories,
Set One, is DENIED as to Defendant Hermilo Hernandez Tejada.
Plaintiff Rose Huong Duong’s Motion to
Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents is DENIED as to
Defendant Hermilo Hernandez Tejada.
Plaintiff Rose Huong Duong’s Motion to
Compel Responses to Request for Admissions is DENIED as to Defendant Hermilo
Hernandez Tejada.
Plaintiff Rose Huong Duong’s 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 March
16, 2023 [ ] Late [X]
None
REPLY: None filed as
of March 16, 2023 [ ]
Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff Rose
Huong Duong (“Plaintiff”) filed an action stemming from an automobile accident
between Plaintiff and Defendants Benita Gutierrez (“Gutierrez”) and Hermilo
Hernandez Tejada (“Tejada”) (collectively, “Defendants”). On August 17, 2022, Defendants filed an Answer
denying all allegations in the Complaint.
On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff
filed the instant three motions – (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form and
Special Interrogatories, Set One, (“Motion Re: Interrogatories”), (2) Motion to
Compel Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One (“RFA Motion”), and (3)
Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“Motion
Re: Documents”). All three motions
were directed to Defendant Tejada. No oppositions were filed.
II.
Legal
Standard & Discussion
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.)
On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff propounded an initial set
of written discovery, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special
Interrogatories, Set One, upon Defendant Tejada. (Mot. Re: Interrogatories; Le Decl.¶ 3, Exhs.
A & B.) Responses to these requests
were due on September 12, 2022. (Id.) On September 26, October 6, October 13, 2022
and February 6 and 8, 2023, Plaintiff’s staff reached out to ask about the
overdue responses. (Id at ¶ 4;
Ex. C.) As of the date of the Motion Re:
Interrogatories, Plaintiff has not received any responses to the Form or
Special Interrogatories. (Id.)
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.)
On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff propounded an initial set
of written discovery, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, upon
Defendant Tejada. (Mot. Re: Documents,
p. 3; Le Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Responses to
this Request were due on September 12, 2022.
(Le Decl. ¶ 3.). Plaintiff’s
counsel reached out to Defendant’s counsel several times but, as of the date of
the Motion Re: Documents, Plaintiff has not received any responses to the Request
for Production of Documents. (Le Decl. ¶
4.)
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)). By failing to timely respond, the party to
whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including
one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2033.280(a).)
Here, Plaintiff propounded a set of Requests for
Admission on Defendant Tejada on August 10, 2022. (RFA Mot., p.4; Le Decl. ¶ 3). Like the other discovery requests, no
responses were forthcoming. (Id. at ¶ 4). As of the date of the RFA Motion, no responses
were received. (Id.)
ANALYSIS
The Court finds that it cannot rule on the instant
Motions because Plaintiff’s discovery requests have exceeded what is permitted
in a limited civil action. In this case, Plaintiff propounded 40 Form Interrogatories and 24 Special
Interrogatories to Defendant Tejada, totaling 64 requests. (Motion Re Interrogatories, Exhs. A
&B). In addition, Plaintiff has
propounded 15 Requests for Admission and 11 Requests for Production of
Documents. (RFA Mot., Exh. A; Mot. Re:
Documents, Exh. 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 ninety (90) 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.
For the reasons discussed
above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form and Special
Interrogatories, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission,
and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Productions of
Documents are all DENIED.
D. 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).)
Because
all of Plaintiff’s Motions were denied, Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are
also DENIED.
III.
Conclusion
& Order
For the foregoing reasons:
Plaintiff Duong’s Motion to Compel
Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One, as to Defendant Tejada is
DENIED.
Plaintiff Duong’s Motion to Compel
Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, as to Defendant Tejada is
DENIED.
Plaintiff Duong’s Motion to Compel
Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, as to Defendant
Tejada is DENIED.
Plaintiff Duong’s request for
sanctions is also DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.