Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV17013, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV17013, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17013 Hearing Date: February 29, 2024 Dept: 27

Complaint Filed: 5/24/22

Unopposed

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Hearing Date: 2/29/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case Name: CARLOS QUEZADA vs JAMIE LOPEZ, et al.

Case No.: 22STCV17013

Motion: MOTION TO COMPEL FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Moving Party: Defendants JAMIE LOPEZ and CLAUDIA MADERO

Responding Party: Plaintiff CARLOS QUEZADA

Notice: Sufficient

Recommended Ruling: Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories General, Set One Without Objections is GRANTED

BACKGROUND

This is an auto accident case filed on 5/24/22. Defendants JAIME LOPEZ and CLAUDIA MADERO filed an answer on 2/28/24 and served form interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff on October 11, 2022. (Declaration of Jonathan D. Lee, Esq., ¶2.) Responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, were due in November 2022. Plaintiff failed to serve any responses by this deadline. (Declaration of Jonathan D. Lee, Esq., ¶3.) On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel requested additional time to provide responses and Defendants granted an extension until December 16, 2022, to receive Plaintiff's verified responses without objections. (Declaration of Jonathan D. Lee, Esq., ¶4.) As of the May 12, 2023, Plaintiff failed to respond to the discovery request at issue. (Declaration of Jonathan D. Lee, Esq., ¶6.) Defendants did not request sanctions and this motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

1. Legal Standard

“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless, on motion by the propounding party, the court extends or shortens the time to respond.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If the party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product ... The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance ... (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

“The party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)

“Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a “meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 (Sinaiko).)

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.)

Here, Defendants propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff on October 11, 2022. (Declaration of Jonathan D. Lee, Esq., ¶2.) The deadline for responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, was in November of 2022. Plaintiff failed to serve any responses by this deadline. (Declaration of Jonathan D. Lee, Esq., ¶3.) On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel requested additional time to provide responses, and Defendants granted an extension until December 16, 2022, for Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections. (Declaration of Jonathan D. Lee, Esq., ¶4.) As of May 12, 2023, the date in which the present motion was filed, there had been no responses to the discovery served on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Jonathan D. Lee, Esq., ¶6.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories – Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses to Form Interrogatories - General, Set One, within 10 days of February 26, 2024, without any objections, including those based on privilege or the protection of work product (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a)). The lack of response also constitutes a waiver of any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

· If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

· Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

· If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.