Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22STCV09050, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09050    Hearing Date: February 1, 2024    Dept: C

AVALOS v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COPMANY

CASE NO.:  22STCV09050

HEARING:  2/1/24

#5

     I.        Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) is DENIED as MOOT.

    II.        Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (set one) is DENIED as MOOT.

  III.        Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) is DENIED as MOOT.

 IV.        No Sanctions are ordered. 

Moving Party to give notice.

If a party to whom interrogatories and document demands are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The failure to timely respond also waives all objections.

Here, Defendants have shown that Form Interrogatories (set one), Special Interrogatories (set one), and Request for Production of Documents (set one) were served on January 26, 2023.

In Opposition, Plaintiff indicates that Responses were (untimely) served on January 12, 2024. Plaintiff maintains that responses were untimely served because Plaintiff’s Counsel mistakenly assumed that a mutual agreement to extend the time to respond to discovery was in place.

The Motion is DENIED as MOOT.

Sanctions may be awarded against a party who fails to oppose a motion to compel, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided after the motion was filed. (C.R.C 3.1348(a).).

It is undisputed that responses were untimely served. However, the Court finds it reasonable to believe that Plaintiff would think that an extension of time between the parties to respond to discovery would be mutual.  Accordingly, the Court declines to order sanctions.