Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV00745, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00745    Hearing Date: July 18, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Wilhelmina Quismundo v. Son The Van 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production without prejudice. 

            Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND 

This is an auto accident case. On March 14, 2023, plaintiff Wilhelmina Quismundo (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Son B Van (erroneously sued as Son The Van) (Defendant) and Does 1 through 26, alleging one cause of action for negligence. 

On June 18, 2024, Plaintiff moved to compel responses to written discovery. 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, (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404), the Court appreciates Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer efforts. (Nahorai Decl., ¶¶ 4-13.) 

            Analysis 

Plaintiff indicates having served Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One, on Defendant on November 15, 2023. (Nahorai Decl., ¶ 3.) Despite having been granted multiple extensions, Defendant failed to respond. (Nahorai Decl., ¶¶ 4-13.) Defendant has not responded as of the filing of the motion. (Nahorai Decl., ¶ 13.) The Court finds Plaintiff has shown it is entitled to responses from Defendant. 

However, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion contains no proof of service, nor is any proof of service on file with the Court evidencing that Plaintiff served this motion on Defendant. Such proof of service should have been filed by July 11, 2024, per Rule 3.1300, subdivision (c), of the California Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (c) [“Proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing.”]) Accordingly, it is unclear to the Court if Defendant was ever properly served with this motion.

The Court also notes that Plaintiff combined all three sets of discovery requests into one motion. Each set of discovery requests requires its own motion and a separate filing fee. There is nothing here indicating that Plaintiff paid three separate motion filing fees.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice.

            The Court also denies Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production without prejudice. 

            Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.