Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV16691, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16691    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: 30

JING YING HUANG, et al. vs EDGAR MUNOZ

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production are DENIED as MOOT. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.  Moving party 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 September 1, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff Jinwu Sha with Form Interrogatories, set one, Requests for Production, set one, and Special Interrogatories, set one. (Jubelt Decl., ¶ 3; Exh. A.) To date, responses have not been provided. (Id., ¶ 5.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Plaintiff served verified responses without objections on January 12, 2024, and that the request for discovery was served on Plaintiff’s former counsel so counsel did not have them until Defendant sent a meet and confer letter.

As Plaintiff has responded to the discovery at issue, the motions to compel responses are moot.

As for sanctions, Plaintiff’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.