Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC05093, Date: 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC05093     Hearing Date: April 3, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants Edson Sanchez Tapia, Oscar Lona Ortega

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court GRANTS Defendants Tapia and Ortega’s Motion Compelling Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories.

The Court GRANTS Defendants Tapia and Ortega’s Motion Compelling Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents.

Plaintiff Joseph Davis is ordered to submit verified responses, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

Defendants are ordered to file corrected Proposed Orders for each Motion to Compel.

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 29, 2023.              [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of March 29, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff Joseph Davis (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Edson Sanchez Tapia (“Tapia”), Oscar Lonaortega (“Lonaortega”), and Ortega Eztapia (“Eztapia”), (collectively “Defendants’), arising out of an alleged motor vehicle accident that took place on August 18, 2020.

On September 19, 2022, Defendants Tapia and Oscar Lona Ortega (erroneously sued and served as Ortega Eztapia) filed a joint Answer to the Complaint.

On February 14, 2023, Defendants filed the two instant Motions:

(1)   Motion Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories (“MTC Form”);

(2)   Motion Compelling Responses to Request for Production of Documents (“MTC RPD”).

No opposition was filed.

On February 27, 2023, Defendants filed a Notice of Change of Firm Name.

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 September 16, 2022, Defendants served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories.  (MTC Form – Alban Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.)  Responses were due by October 18, 2022.  (Ibid.)  On October 17, 2022, Defendants’ counsel granted Plaintiff’s counsel an extension to serve responses until November 17, 2022.  (Ibid.)  On November 17, 2022, defense counsel once again communicated with Plaintiff’s counsel but declined to grant a second extension.  (Ibid., Ex. B.)  Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he was making efforts to locate the Plaintiff but was not successful given that Plaintiff is currently homeless, and he was unable to reach Plaintiff at the homeless shelter.  (Ibid., Ex. B.)  Defense counsel did not move forward with the motion to compel and once again communicated with Plaintiff’s counsel on January 3, 2023.  (Ibid. at ¶ 5.)  Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he had not been able to get in touch with Plaintiff.  (Ibid.)  Defendants have not received any responses to the form interrogatories.  (Ibid.)

Here, Defendants have demonstrated that they have propounded form interrogatories on Plaintiff and Plaintiff has not provided any responses.  Although Defendants were not obligated to meet and confer with Plaintiff, they have attempted to resolve the issue informally.

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories.

            The Court notes that Defendants have filed a Proposed Order containing the following language irrelevant to the instant Motion “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Sanctions in the amount of $661.65 are awarded to Defendant, JONATHAN PEREZ, to be paid within 30 days of the date of this Order.”  (Proposed Order p. 2.)  Defendants do not request sanctions in the Motion and Jonathan Perez is not a party to this action.  Accordingly, Defendants are ordered to file a corrected Proposed Order for the Motion Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories.

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 September 16, 2022, Defendants served Plaintiff with Request for Production of Documents.  (MTC RPD – Alban Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.)  Responses were due by October 18, 2022.  (Ibid.)  On October 17, 2022, Defendants’ counsel granted Plaintiff’s counsel an extension to serve responses until November 17, 2022.  (Ibid.)  On November 17, 2022, defense counsel once again communicated with Plaintiff’s counsel but declined to grant a second extension.  (Ibid., Ex. B.)  Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he was making efforts to locate the Plaintiff but was not successful given that Plaintiff is currently homeless, and he was unable to reach Plaintiff at the homeless shelter.  (Ibid., Ex. B.)  Defense counsel did not move forward with the motion to compel and once again communicated with Plaintiff’s counsel on January 3, 2023.  (Ibid. at ¶ 5.)  Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he had not been able to get in touch with Plaintiff.  (Ibid.)  Defendants have not received any responses to the request for production.  (Ibid.)

Here, Defendants have demonstrated that they have propounded a request for production of documents on Plaintiff and Plaintiff has not provided any responses.  Although Defendants were not obligated to meet and confer with Plaintiff, they have attempted to resolve the issue informally.

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents.

            The Court notes that Defendants have filed a Proposed Order containing the following language irrelevant to the instant Motion “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Sanctions in the amount of $661.65 are awarded to Defendant, JONATHAN PEREZ, to be paid within 30 days of the date of this Order.”  (Proposed Order p. 2.)  Defendants do not request sanctions in the Motion and Jonathan Perez is not a party to this action.  Accordingly, Defendants are ordered to file a corrected Proposed Order for the Motion Compelling Responses to Request for Production of Documents.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

The Court GRANTS Defendants Tapia and Ortega’s Motion Compelling Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories.

The Court GRANTS Defendants Tapia and Ortega’s Motion Compelling Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents.

Plaintiff Joseph Davis is ordered to submit verified responses, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

Defendants are ordered to file corrected Proposed Orders for each Motion to Compel.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.