Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV42698, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV42698 Hearing Date: October 18, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 6, 2020, Plaintiff Emma Kim (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Jane Doe and Does 1-25 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Siew Ling Loh as Doe 1 (“Defendant”). On December 30, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.
On February 6, 2023, the Court dismissed Defendant Jane Doe with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On September 15, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, to be heard on October 18, 2023.
On September 18, 2023, the Court granted (1) Defendant’s motion (filed August 17, 2023) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one and (2) Defendant’s motion (filed August 17, 2023) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set one. The Court ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses to the special interrogatories and form interrogatories compliant with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210, subdivision (a), and 2030.220 without objections by October 18, 2023.
Trial is currently scheduled for January 19, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendant requests that the Court compel Plaintiff to serve full and complete responses to form interrogatories, set one, and special interrogatories, set one.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Interrogatories
“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 of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260.)
“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.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)
B. Discovery sanctions
“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030,
subd. (a).)
“Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, . . .
* * *
“(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”
(Code Civ. Proc., §2023.010, subd. (d).)
DISCUSSION
Defendant requests that the Court order Plaintiff to serve code-compliant responses to form interrogatories, set one, and special interrogatories, set one, propounded on December 30, 2022. Defendant made the same requests in a motion filed on August 17, 2023, which the Court granted on September 18, 2023. The Court denies the motion filed September 15, 2023 because the Court has already granted the relief requested.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant Siew Ling Loh’s motion to compel Plaintiff Emma Kim’s responses to form interrogatories, set one.
The Court DENIES Defendant Siew Ling Loh’s request for sanctions.
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.