Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV11531, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11531    Hearing Date: May 9, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

A.   Previous proceedings

On April 5, 2022, Plaintiff Samuel Rojas (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants C&C North America, Inc. (“C&C”), Nolan Transportation Group, LLC (“Nolan”), Emmet Isaacs, Cosentino Los Angeles (“Cosentino”), and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability.

On May 10, 2022, the Court dismissed Nolan without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Nolan as Doe 1.

On January 11, 2023, C&C filed an answer.

On March 10, 2023, the Court granted Nolan’s motion to quash service of the summons and complaint on Nolan.

On June 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants C&C, Nolan, Emmitt Isaacks, Cosentino, and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability.

On June 30, 2023, Nolan filed an answer to the first amended complaint.  On July 10, 2023, C&C filed an answer.  On August 28, 2023, Defendant Emmet Isaacs filed an answer.

On November 1, 2023, Plaintiff amended the first amended complaint to include Defendant Jose Tapia as Doe 1.  On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff amended the first amended complaint to include Defendant Jose Tapia Perez as Doe 2.

On April 8, 2024, the Court dismissed Defendant Jose Tapia (Doe 1) without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.  On April 11, 2024, the Court dismissed Defendant Emmet Isaacs without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.  On April 17, 2024, the Court dismissed Defendant Jose Tapia Perez (Doe 2) without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.

On April 11, 2024, C&C filed a stipulation signed by counsel for C&C, Plaintiff, and Nolan stating in part:

“1. On July 1, 2021, Defendant JOSE TAPIA PEREZ was in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant C&C NORTH AMERICA, INC. at the time of the accident that is the subject of this lawsuit.

“2. JOSE TAPIA PEREZ was acting within the scope of his employment with Defendant C&C NORTH AMERICA, INC. when plaintiff Samuel Rojas was harmed on July 1, 2021.

“3. At the time of plaintiff Samuel Rojas’s harm, on July 1, 2021, JOSE TAPIA PEREZ’S conduct was reasonably related to the kinds of tasks that he was employed by Defendant C&C NORTH AMERICA, INC. to perform.

“4. If a jury finds Defendant JOSE TAPIA PEREZ negligent for causing Plaintiff SAMUEL ROJAS’s injuries, then Defendant C&C NORTH AMERICA stipulates it is jointly and severally liable for all compensatory damages attributed to Defendant JOSE TAPIA PEREZ awarded to Plaintiff.

“5. Defendants C&C NORTH AMERICA and JOSE TAPIA PEREZ do not admit to liability and instead expressly reserve, their right to contest all elements of Plaintiff’s causes of actions along with the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages that were caused by the accident that is the subject of this lawsuit. . . .”

On April 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against C&C, Nolan, Emmet Isaacks, Cosentino, and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability, including a prayer for punitive damages.

Trial is currently set for September 19, 2024.

B.   This motion

On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel C&C’s responses to special interrogatories, set three to be heard on May 9, 2024.  (Plaintiff also requested sanctions but later withdrew the request.)  On April 26, 2024, C&C filed an opposition. On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS

          Plaintiff asks the Court to compel C&C’s responses to special interrogatories, set three.

C&C 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 February 1, 2024, Plaintiff served special interrogatories, set three, on C&C.  Plaintiff granted C&C’s requests to extend C&C’s time to respond to March 27, 2024, but C&C did not serve timely responses.  On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel C&C’s responses to the special interrogatories.

          On April 25, 2024, C&C served responses to the special interrogatories.  Although C&C had waived any objections by failing to provide timely responses, C&C’s responses contained objections.  Plaintiff argues that C&C’s responses were deficient in other respects as well.  C&C argues that its belated service of responses to the special interrogatories renders Plaintiff’s motion to compel moot.

          In Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390 (Sinaiko), the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that, because defendants served responses to the plaintiff’s interrogatories, the plaintiff’s sole remedy was to move to compel further responses to the interrogatories.  The Court of Appeal explained: “Under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2030.290 . . . once a party has failed to serve timely interrogatory responses, the trial court has the authority to hear a propounding party’s motion to compel responses under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2030.290, subdivision (b), regardless of whether a party serves an untimely response. If a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, then by operation of law, all objections that it could assert to those interrogatories are waived. ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 2030.290, subd. (a).) Unless that party obtains relief from its waiver, the propounding party is entitled to move under subdivision (b) for an order compelling the response to which the propounding party is entitled—that is, a response without objection, and that substantially complies with the provisions governing the form ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 2030.210) and completeness ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 2030.220) of interrogatory responses.”  (Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 408.)

          Based on the reasoning of Sinaiko, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is not moot.  It is undisputed that C&C’s responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories were untimely.  It is also undisputed that C&C’s belated responses contain objections.  Because C&C waived its objections by failing to provide timely responses, and the Court has not relieved C&C of its waiver, the objections were improper.  Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel C&C’s objection-free responses to the special interrogatories.  The Court does not address Plaintiff’s contention that C&C’s interrogatory responses are deficient in other respects.

CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Samuel Rojas’s motion to compel Defendant C&C North America, Inc.’s responses to special interrogatories, set three.  The Court orders Defendant C&C North America, Inc. to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by June 7, 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.