Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV13660, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.

                                       Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.  This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.    
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 21STCV13660    Hearing Date: March 29, 2024    Dept: 28

Having reviewed the moving and response papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff Menajoyrie Melentha Francis Webster (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ramiro Montiel Lopez (“Defendant”) and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort, general negligence, and emotional distress. 

On April 3, 2023, Defendant filed an answer. 

On November 22, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, to be heard on March 6, 2024.  The Court continued the hearing to March 29, 2024.  On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a response. 

Trial is currently scheduled for October 29, 2024. 

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 

A.      Informal Discovery Conference 

The Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective October 10, 2022 (filed September 20, 2022), ¶ 9E, provides: “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).  PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.” 

Defendant scheduled and appeared for an IDC on October 4, 2023.  Plaintiff did not appear.  The Court found that Defendant had satisfied the IDC requirement. 

B.       Timeliness of motion 

A notice of motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be given within 45 days of the service of the responses, or any supplemental responses, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) Failure to file a motion within this time period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses to interrogatories. 

On November 22, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one.  Plaintiff does not dispute the timeliness of the motion. 

C.   Meet and confer 

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).)  “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)  

Defendant has provided a meet and confer declaration. 

D.      Separate statement 

With exceptions that do not apply here, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is warranted.  

Defendant has filed a separate statement. 

APPLICABLE LAW 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides: 

“(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: 

“(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. 

 “(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. 

“(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. 

“(b) (1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. 

“(2) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute. 

“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories. 

“(d) 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 further 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. 

“(e) If a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, 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., § 2030.300.) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 provides: 

“(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. 

“(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. 

“(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.) 

DISCUSSION 

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one 

Propounded:                               April 4, 2023
Responses:                                 July 31, 2023
Supplemental responses:            March 3, 2024
Motion filed:                               November 22, 2023

After Defendant filed his motion, Plaintiff served supplemental responses to the form interrogatories.  Plaintiff asserts that the supplemental responses are “complete responses” to the form interrogatories and that the delay in serving them was the result of her attorney’s “inadvertent mistake and confusion.”  Based on these assertions, Plaintiff asks the Court to deny Defendant’s request for sanctions. 

Defendant has not filed a reply or disputed Plaintiff’s assertions.  Therefore, the Court denies the motion as moot and finds that it would be unjust to award sanctions against Plaintiff. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant Ramiro Montiel Lopez’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one. 

The Court DENIES Defendant Ramiro Montiel Lopez’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.