Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV29533, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29533    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: 30

CECILIA GOMEZ vs LOREN QUEZADA

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motions to compel responses to supplemental interrogatories, supplemental special interrogatories, and supplemental request for production are DENIED as MOOT.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered 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).)

In addition to the limited number of interrogatories that may be propounded, a party may propound “a supplemental interrogatory” to obtain later-acquired information on¿matters covered¿by earlier interrogatories (but not on other topics). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070(a).) 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.

A party may propound “a supplemental demand” to inspect, copy, test, or sample any later acquired or discovered documents, tangible things…. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.050.)

Such supplemental demands may be made 1)¿twice¿prior to initial setting of a trial date, and 2) subject to the discovery “cut-off” date (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.010 et seq.), once¿after the initial setting of a trial date. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.050(b), 2030.070(b).) For good cause shown, the court may allow a party to propound¿additional¿supplemental demands for inspection. This allows for updating of previously requested information. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.050(c), 2030.070(b).)

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to compel responses to interrogatories 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).)

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 January 9, 2024, Defendant served Supplemental Interrogatories, and Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, on Plaintiff. (Leach Decl., Exh. A.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to provide responses nor requested any extensions. (Id., ¶ 3.)

In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel states that responses have now been served, and argues that the motions are moot. Plaintiff’s counsel argues he mistakenly believed his assistant served the responses that he prepared, but this was incorrect. Plaintiff contends Defendant should have met and conferred in order to resolve the miscommunication rather than file this motion.

In reply, Defendant argues that even accepting that Plaintiff’s responses were not served by the deadline due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s oversight, the responses should have been served shortly after the motions to compel were served on February 20, 2024. Instead, Plaintiff’s counsel waited another 22 days.

As verified responses have been served, the motions are moot.

As for sanctions, the Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel has provided substantial justification for failing to serve the responses in time. Defendant’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.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to compel responses to supplemental interrogatories, supplemental special interrogatories, and supplemental request for production are DENIED as MOOT.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.