Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 23PSCV00534, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV00534, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00534 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Kyleen Pray v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al.

Defendant BMW of North America, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court GRANTS Defendant BMW of North America, LLC’s motion as to Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff Kyleen Pray must provide verified responses, without objection, to BMW’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days of the Court’s order.

The Court will GRANT Defendant BMW of North America, LLC’s motion to compel responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One on the condition that Defendant BMW of North America, LLC pays the separate motion filing fee, after which Plaintiff Kyleen Pray must provide verified, code-compliant responses, without objection, and produce responsive documents, within 20 days of the Court’s order. If Defendant BMW of North America, LLC fails to pay the separate motion filing fee within five days of the Court’s order, the motion will be denied without prejudice.

The Court GRANTS Defendant BMW of North America, LLC’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $830.00. Plaintiff Kyleen Pray and Plaintiff’s counsel of record must pay said monetary sanctions to counsel for Defendant BMW of North America, LLC within 20 days of the Court’s order.

Defendant BMW of North America, LLC is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury and products liability case. On February 23, 2023, plaintiff Kyleen Pray (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants BMW of North America, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (BMW), Penske Motor Group, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, dba BMW of Ontario, Taylor Co Automotive, a California Corporation, Pedro Juan Pedro, and Does 1 to 160, alleging causes of action for motor vehicle, general negligence, and products liability.

On May 21, 2024, BMW moved to compel responses to written discovery requests. The motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

When a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… 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.” (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

When a party fails to serve a timely response to an inspection demand, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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.” (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

Although meeting and conferring is not required before bringing motions to compel initial responses, (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404), the Court notes that BMW indicates having attempted to meet and confer, albeit by email only, before bringing this motion, (Stoltz Decl., ¶¶ 6-8). The Court requests that any such future meet-and-confer efforts be conducted by telephone, videoconference, or in person before resorting to email, as the Court finds these methods more effective than email.

Analysis

BMW indicates that it served Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on Plaintiff on January 26, 2024. (Stoltz Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Exs. A-B.) Despite having given Plaintiff’s counsel additional time to respond and having otherwise attempted to meet and confer before bringing this motion, BMW has not received any responses to this written discovery. (Stoltz Decl., ¶¶ 6-10.) The Court finds BMW’s motion to be well taken.

However, the Court also notes that BMW combined two sets of discovery into one motion when each set of discovery should have been addressed in a separate motion with separate filing fees. (See Govt. Code, § 70617, subds. (a), (f); Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.010 et seq., 2031.010, et seq.) Accordingly, the Court will GRANT BMW’s motion as to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and will conditionally GRANT BMW’s motion as to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, provided BMW pays the separate motion filing fee within five days of the Court’s ruling. Otherwise, the motion will be denied without prejudice as to those discovery requests.

With respect to monetary sanctions, the Court GRANTS BMW’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record in the reduced amount of $830.00, comprised of 2.0 hours preparing the motion and appearing at the hearing on the motion, multiplied by the hourly rate of $385.00, plus the $60.00 motion filing fee.

CONCLUSION

Defendant BMW of North America, LLC is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.