Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC07165, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC07165     Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, and FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS  

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Nixon Gerardo Gomez (“Plaintiff”)  

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

AND FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2033.280, 2031.300, 2030.290 etc.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Plaintiff’s Demand For Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.   

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 May 15, 2023                [   ] Late                      [ X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of May 15, 2023                [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff Nixon Gerardo Gomez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Maria Gabriela Rodriguez (“Defendant”), alleging breach of contract, common counts and fraud. Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on December 2, 2022.   

On April 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion To Compel Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff’s Demand for Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Admission, Set One, which were allegedly served on Defendant on January 19, 2023.  Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions.

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

A.    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.)

B.    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).)  Since such motion is in response to failure to respond, there is no requirement to meet and confer prior to moving to deem the requests for admission admitted.  (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007), 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.). 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).)

The Court finds that it cannot rule on the instant Motions for the following reasons:

(1)   The Court notes that Plaintiff hs impermissibly filed two 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, Plaintiff paid a single filing fee for what should have been two separate motions.

(2)   Plaintiff has failed to attach copies of the discovery requests to the motions. Accordingly, without the discovery requests, the Court cannot determine if Plaintiff’s requests are reasonable, exceed the number permitted in limited civil, and/or were properly served.  (CCP §94(a)).

(3)   Plaintiff’s declaration is incomplete.  Plaintiff states that he served Form Interrogatories and Requests for Admission, Set One, on Defendant.  (Gomez Decl. p. 1).  Plaintiff’s declaration, however, fails to state that no responses were received. 

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff’s Demand for Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Admission, Set One are DENIED without prejudice.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.