Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC07311, Date: 2023-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC07311    Hearing Date: December 19, 2023    Dept: 25

Tentative Ruling

Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong

Department 25

Confidential – Court-Privileged Document

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, December 19, 2023

Case Name:                             MATLIOUBA KATSNELSON and IRINA ZVEREV v. INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB

Case No.:                                23STLC07311

Motion:                                   Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Set One and Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents Set One

Moving Party:                         Petitioner Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Recommended Ruling:           Petitioner Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Set One is DENIED.

Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents Set One is also DENIED.

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of December 13, 2023              [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of December 13, 2023              [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On November 15, 2023, Petitioner Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club petitioned the Court to file motions to compel Insureds/Claimants’ responses to written discovery against Respondents Matliouba Katsnelson (“Katsnelson”) and Irina Zverev (“Zverev”) (collectively “Respondents”). The litigation arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 13, 2021, involving the Respondents and uninsured motorist.

On November 20, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant motions to compel responses to both Form Interrogatories Set One and Request for Production of Documents Set One as to Respondent Zverev.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Petitioner prays for the Court to issue an order compelling Respondent Zverev’s response to its Form Interrogatories Set One and Request for Production of Documents Set One.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard  

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No “meet and confer” efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) 

II.        Discussion

A. Form Interrogatories

Petitioner asserts that on July 12, 2023, it served its Form interrogatories on Respondent Zverev via electronic mail with responses due by or before August 15, 2023. (Dec. Alan Trafton ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. A.) Petitioner states that on September 07, 2023, it sent a meet and confer letter to Zverev’s counsel notifying him of his failure to serve any responses. (Id. ¶5, Ex. B.) This was followed up by two additional meet and confer letters to counsel issued on October 02, 2023, which extended the deadline for response to October 15, 2023, and October 31, 2023, which extended the deadline for response to November 06, 2023. (Id.¶¶7, 9. Ex. C&D.) At both points, Petitioner states Zverev’s counsel ignored all three letters. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 8, 10.) To date the Petitioner has not received a response from Zverev’s counsel. (Id. ¶ 11.) Thus, the motion satisfies Section 2030.290.

However, the Court finds the following deficiencies with this motion:

Generally, in limited jurisdiction cases, a party may propound to each adverse party any combination of 35 of the following: (1) interrogatories with no subparts, (2) demands to produce documents, and (3) requests for admission with no subparts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 94, subd. (a).)

Here Petitioner provides the court with a copy of their Form Interrogatories which makes 206 requests. (Ex. A.) Well over the “grabbag rule of 35” allowed under Section 94. Additionally, Petitioner made its Form Interrogatory request on the incorrect form which is proper only in unlimited civil not limited civil.

Thus, the motion is improper under Section 94.

B. Request for Production of Documents

The Court notes that the same facts above are provided in Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Responses for Request for Production of Documents Set One.

For the reasons articulated in the previous section, the Court cannot grant the motion to compel RPDs. Taken together as a whole Plaintiff’s request falls outside the permissible amount of discovery request allowed in limited civil actions. Thus, because the motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 94, the Court cannot issue an order to compel.   

III.       Conclusion

            Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Set One is DENIED.  

Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents Set One is also DENIED.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.