Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV03236, Date: 2025-03-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV03236 Hearing Date: March 5, 2025 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 3/5/25
TRIAL DATE: 3/30/26
Case #23CHCV03236
MOTION TO
COMPEL
(Special
Interrogatories, Set 2)
Motion filed on 9/3/24.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ramon Barrios-Herrera
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Juan Carlos Sanchez
RULING: The motion is granted, in part, and denied,
without prejudice, in part. The request
for sanctions is denied.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision that
occurred on 1/8/23. On 10/24/23,
Plaintiff Ramon Barrios-Herrera (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant
Juan Carlos Sanchez (Defendant) for motor vehicle negligence and general
negligence. On 12/4/23, Defendant,
representing himself, answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint
against Plaintiff.
On 6/6/24, Plaintiff served Defendant with Special
Interrogatories, Set 2, by U.S. mail. (Juhn
Decl., Ex.1). Having received no
responses, on 7/15/24, Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter demanding
responses without objections by 7/30/24.
(Id., Ex.2). On 8/13/24,
Defendant served incomplete responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 2. (Id., Ex.3). On 8/14/24, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer
letter regarding the deficient responses requesting full and complete responses
within 2 weeks. (Id., Ex.4). No further responses were received. Id.
On 9/3/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion
seeking an order compelling Defendant Juan Carlos Sanchez to provide verified,
objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set 2. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions
against Defendant in the amount of $1,304.25.
The motion was originally scheduled for hearing on 2/5/25. On 2/5/25, the hearing was continued due to
issues with the notice. (See
2/5/25 Minute Order).
On 2/6/25, Plaintiff filed and served an Amended Notice
of Motion pursuant to the Court/s 2/5/25 Minute Order. Defendant has not opposed or otherwise
responded to the motion.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff bases the relief requested in this motion on CCP
2030.290 – where a party fails to respond to interrogatories. (See Motion, p.4:15-p.5:5). However, as noted above, on or around
8/13/24, Defendant served, albeit late, responses to three out of four of the
special interrogatories at issue. (See
Juhn Decl. ¶7, Ex.3). Therefore, it
appears that Plaintiff should have sought further responses to Special
Interrogatories, numbers 1, 2 and 3 in Set 2, pursuant to CCP 2030.300 and
included a separate statement as required by CRC 3.1345. It seems that Plaintiff’s counsel may have
been aware of the foregoing as the motion indicates that Plaintiff has
satisfied his duty to meet and confer under CCP 2030.300(b) which applies when
further responses are sought. (See
Motion, p.6:3-15). There is no meet and
confer requirement when initial discovery responses are sought under CCP
2030.290.
CONCLUSION
The motion is granted as to Special Interrogatory, No.4
in Set 2. A response to Special
Interrogatory No.4 is due within 30 days.
The motion is denied without prejudice, as to Special Interrogatories Nos.
1, 2 and 3 in Set 2. If Defendant’s
responses to Special Interrogatories 1, 2 and 3 were not verified, making them
the equivalent of no response, Plaintiff must explain and support such an
argument in a future motion.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. The Court finds that imposing sanctions under
the circumstances would be unjust as the motion was not entirely
successful. CCP 2030.290(c).
The Court further notes that in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4),
Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits attached
to the motion. Counsel is warned that
failure to comply with this requirement in the future may result in matters
being continued so that papers can be resubmitted in compliance with the rule,
papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.