Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 24STCP00396, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP00396    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion to Compel Verified Answers without Objections to Interrogatories (No. 2) [and] Request for Sanctions

Moving Party: Petitioner Progressive Insurance Company

Resp. Party:    None

SUBJECT:        Motion to Compel Verified Answers Without Objections to Demand for Identification and Production of Document (No. 2) [and] Request for Sanctions

Moving Party: Petitioner Progressive Insurance Company

Resp. Party:    None

The SROGs Motion is GRANTED.  The RPDs Motion is GRANTED.  The request for sanctions is DENIED.

        Respondent shall serve responses to the SROGs and RPDs within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order.

BACKGROUND:

On February 7, 2024, Petitioner Progressive Insurance Company (“Petitioner”) filed its Petition to Open Superior Court File for Purposes of Obtaining Jurisdiction Over Uninsured Motorist Matter (“Petition”) against Respondent Philip Turner (“Respondent”). The underlying issue in this matter involves an ongoing arbitration regarding an uninsured motorist claim.

On February 15, 2024, Petitioner filed two copies of Judicial Council Form POS-020, Proof of Personal Service—Civil.

On February 23, 2024, Petitioner filed: (1) Motion to Compel Verified Answers without Objections to Interrogatories (No. 2) [and] Request for Sanctions (“SROGs Motion”); and (2) Motion to Compel Verified Answers Without Objections to Demand for Identification and Production of Document (No. 2) [and] Request for Sanctions (“RPDs Motion”).

No oppositions or other responses have been filed regarding the discovery motions.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand requests are propounded within 30 days after service of the requests, unless the time is extended by agreement of the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2030.270, subd. (a), 2031.260, subd. (a), 2031.270, subd. (a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, "the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905, 906.) Indeed, "[o]nce [a party] 'fail[ed] to serve a timely response,' the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party's] motion to compel responses." (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel motions for interrogatories or requests for production, 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. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

II.       Discussion

A.      The Discovery Requests

“[T]he uninsured motorist law grants the superior court the exclusive jurisdiction to hear discovery matters arising under uninsured motorist arbitrations.” (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 926, italics in original, citing Ins. Code, § 11580.2, subd. (f).)

        Here, Petitioners moves the Court to compel Respondent to serve responses to special interrogatories (“SROGs”) and requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) that were served by Petitioner on Respondent on November 13, 2023. (SROGs Motion, Exh. A, Proof of Service; RPDs Motion, Exh. A, Proof of service.)

        Respondent has not opposed or other responded to the motions.

        Petitioner’s Counsel declares that no such responses have been served. (SROGs Motion, Decl. Calendo, ¶¶ 10, 14; RPDs Motion, Decl. Calendo, ¶¶ 10, 14.)

        The Court GRANTS the SROGs Motion.

        The Court GRANTS the RPDs Motion. 

        Respondent shall serve responses to the SROGs and RPDs within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order.

B.      Sanctions

Petitioner requests $781.65 in monetary sanctions for each of the motions.

Petitioner’s Counsel declares: (1) that they charge $180.00 per hour; (2) that they incurred three hours of work for each of the motions; and (3) that they incurred $61.65 in costs for each of the motions. (SROGs Motion, Decl. Calendo, ¶ 15; RPDs Motion, Decl. Calendo, ¶ 15.)

        However, it appears that Respondent is in pro per.  To the pro per litigant, “interrogatories, requests for admissions, law and motion proceedings, and the like” are “baffling devices.”  (Bruno v. Superior Court (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1359, 1363, quoting Burley v. Stein (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 752, 755, fn. 3.)

        The Court declines to award sanctions.

III.     Conclusion

The SROGs Motion is GRANTED.  The RPDs Motion is GRANTED.  The request for sanctions is DENIED.

        Respondent shall serve responses to the SROGs and RPDs within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order.