Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV28198, Date: 2023-12-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV28198 Hearing Date: February 23, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving and opposition papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 27, 2020, Plaintiff Chun Ho Tang (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Mario Salazar (“Salazar”), Harbor Dispatch Transport, Inc. (“Harbor”), and Does 1-50 for negligence.
On November 4, 2021, Salazar and Harbor filed an answer.
On November 30, 2023, Harbor filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set four, and for sanctions, to be heard on February 23, 2024. On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition.
Trial is currently set for June 25, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Harbor asks the Court to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set four, without objections. Harbor also requests sanctions.
Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides:
“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The 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 under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). 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 with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.
“(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)
DISCUSSION
On October 12, 2023, Harbor served special interrogatories, set four, on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Harbor filed these motions.
Plaintiff argues that the motion is moot because Plaintiff provided verified substantive, code-complaint responses to the special interrogatories on February 9, 2024. But Plaintiff’s responses include objections despite Plaintiff’s waiver of those objections by failing to serve a timely response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) Therefore, the motion is not moot.
Plaintiff asks the Court to relieve him of his waiver of objections to the special interrogatories. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), however, requires the party asking for relief from waiver to file a motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a) [“The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver . . . .”].) The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for relief from waiver without prejudice.
Plaintiff also argues that Harbor agreed to take this motion off calendar in return for receiving Plaintiff's responses. Plaintiff has attached an email from his counsel to Harbor's counsel stating in part: "As we discussed, my o¿ce will work with our client to get you code-compliant responses on Special Interrogatories, Set 4 by the end of this week, and upon receipt, you will request authority from your client to take the motion to compel o¿ calendar." Plaintiff does not provide an email from Harbor's counsel. At most, the email from Plaintiff's counsel establishes that Harbor's counsel would request authority from Harbor to take the motion off calendar. It does not show that Harbor's counsel guaranteed that Harbor would provide that authority.
The Court grants the motion and orders Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses to special interrogatories, set four, without objections by March 22, 2024.
Harbor requests sanctions of $452.00 based on 1.6 hours of attorney time needed to draft the motion at a rate of $245.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee. The Court grants the request.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Harbor Dispatch Transport, Inc.’s motion to compel Plaintiff Chun Ho Tang’s responses to special interrogatories, set four, and orders Plaintiff Chun Ho Tang to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by March 22, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Harbor Dispatch Transport, Inc.’s request for sanctions and orders Plaintiff Chun Ho Tang and his counsel to pay Defendant Harbor Dispatch Transport, Inc. $452.00 by March 22, 2024.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.