Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV12318, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV12318    Hearing Date: March 8, 2024    Dept: 30

MIGUEL MENDOZA vs CITY OF LOS ANGELES

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production are DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is to give notice.

Legal Standard

Compel Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905–906.)

Compel RPDs

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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. §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)

Under CCP section 2023.030(a), “[t]he 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. . . . 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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

Discussion

On October 4, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Production, set three, and Special Interrogatories, set two. (Aghabala Decl., ¶ 6; Exh. 1.) To date, responses have not been provided.

In opposition, City argues that it has been chronically understaffed for the past year, at all levels, including paralegals, secretaries, clerks, as well as attorneys. Over the December 2023 time frame, when these responses were due, deadlines were missed in many cases, including in this one. City is not making excuses and accepts that these mistakes cannot and should not be tolerated. Nevertheless, due to mis-calendaring and an over-burdened schedule these responses fell through the cracks. (Quinones Decl., ¶ 2.) City argues that the motions are moot because it has now served responses to the discovery at issue. (Id., ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff has not filed a reply to dispute that the motion is moot and that the City has provided responses to the discovery at issue. As Defendant has responded to the discovery at issue, the motions to compel responses are moot.

As for sanctions, Defendant’s counsel has provided substantial justification for the failure to serve timely responses. Moreover, the opposition was not unsuccessfully made, as the motions are being denied as moot. As such, the request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions under CCP section 2023.010 for the misuse of discovery is also denied, as "sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery.” (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504.)