Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 18STCV06099, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 18STCV06099, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV06099 Hearing Date: December 5, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL RESPONSES AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

Hearing Date: 12/5/24¿

CASE NO./NAME: 18STCV06099 SHERMAN VICKERS vs CYNTHIA OLMOS

Moving Party: Defendant Cynthia Olmos

Responding Party: Plaintiff¿

Notice: Sufficient¿

Ruling: Granted In Part

Background

On November 26, 2018, pro per Plaintiff Sherman Vickers ("Plaintiff") filed this action against Defendant Cynthia Olmos and Defendant Lyft, Inc., alleging injuries arising from a motor vehicle versus pedestrian accident that occurred on November 25, 2016. On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed an appeal of this Court's October 5, 2022, ruling. Consequently, this matter was on appeal and stayed for approximately two years. The appeal was remitted, and the stay on this case was lifted in July 2024.

Defendant Olmos served numerous discovery requests on Plaintiff before and after the stay and now moves the Court to compel Plaintiff's initial responses. The discovery requests at issue are as follows:

1. Requests for Production of Documents (Set One):
On March 25, 2019, Defendant Olmos served Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents (Set One). Plaintiff's responses were due on April 29, 2019. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond.

2. Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two):
On July 31, 2020, Defendant Olmos served Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two). Plaintiff's responses were due on September 2, 2020. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond.

3. On August 23, 2024, Defendant Olmos served Plaintiff with Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One). Plaintiff's responses were due on September 24, 2024. To date, Plaintiff has failed to provide any responses.

4. Supplemental Demand for Production of Documents (Set One):
On August 23, 2024, Defendant Olmos served Plaintiff with a Supplemental Demand for Production of Documents (Set One). Plaintiff's responses were due on September 24, 2024. To date, Plaintiff has failed to provide any responses.

Legal Standard

A defendant may make a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling without leave of court at any time. Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (a).) A plaintiff may make a demand for production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) A plaintiff may make a demand for production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) The demand for production of documents is not limited by number, but the request must comply with the formatting requirements in Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030. A party may propound 35 specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action and any additional number of official form interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030, subd. (a)(1) - (a)(2).)¿¿¿¿¿¿

¿¿¿¿¿

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of a demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.270, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.270, subd. (a) - (b).)¿¿¿¿¿¿

¿¿¿¿¿

If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)¿¿The party propounding the discovery requests may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) Unlike a motion to compel further discovery responses, a motion to compel initial discovery responses does not have any meet and confer requirements.¿¿¿¿

¿¿¿¿

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (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, subd. (d).)¿¿¿A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.)

Discussion

Plaintiff, in pro per, filed an opposition arguing that the motion should be denied because there was no meet and confer, no IDC, no separate statement, and the 45-day deadline to file a motion to compel has passed.

There is no time limit to file a motion to compel discovery responses when no written responses have been served. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The 45-day deadline referenced by Plaintiff applies to motions to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The present motions are motions to compel initial responses.

Furthermore, the requirement for an IDC and a separate statement applies to motions to compel further responses, not to motions to compel initial responses. (Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Court at pg. 7; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)

Plaintiff states that “Plaintiff timely responded to Defendant’s Discovery Set 2; Demand for Production of Documents Nov. 10, 2024”; however, no such responses were attached to the motion. It is also unclear from the phrasing what responses, if any, have been provided. One of the subject motions concerns Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, which was served on July 31, 2020. It is possible that Plaintiff is referring to this discovery request. Defendant, in its reply, asserts that Plaintiff’s responses do not pertain to any of the subject motions. However, Defendant also failed to attach the referenced discovery responses for the Court to assess. Therefore, as to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, the Court will hear from the parties.

As to the other discovery responses, Plaintiff provided no indication that the responses were served prior to the hearing. Therefore, the Court grants the motions and orders Plaintiff to serve complete and verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One), and Supplemental Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) within 20 days of today.

Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $1,860 per motion. Sanctions are mandatory in this instance. However, the issue is straightforward and repetitive; accordingly, the Court reduces the sanctions to $1,000 for all four motions, payable to Defendant within 20 days of today.