Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV23479, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV23479    Hearing Date: April 17, 2025    Dept: 40

24STCV23479 Brian Alberto Solis v. Largo Concrete, Inc., et al.

Thursday, April 17, 2025.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AS MOOT

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AS MOOT

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AS MOOT

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

                                                I.            BACKGROUND

This action arises from a forklift related injury sustained by Plaintiff working on a construction project. Plaintiff Brian Alberto Solis (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendants Largo Concrete, Inc., Clark Construction Group, LLC, and Does 1 to 50 for (1) general negligence and (2) premises liability. On February 11, 2025, Plaintiff brings the instant motion to compel Defendant Clark Construction Group, LLC to respond to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents, to produce all responsive documents, and for an award of monetary sanctions.

On April 4, 2025, Defendant Clark Construction Group – California, LP filed an opposition.

On April 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply asking the court to disregard Defendant’s opposition because it was filed by Tharpe & Howell, LLP, who were substituted out and are no longer the attorneys of record.  Plaintiff concedes that Defendant provided the discovery but argues the  motions are not moot and asks the court to sanctions Defendant.

                                                 II.            DISCUSSION

When a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.” (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) . 

When a party fails to serve a timely response to an inspection demand, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., subd. (a).) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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.” (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Plaintiff’s form and special interrogatories and requests for production is MOOT due to Defendant’s provision of verified responses.

On the issue of sanctions, the Court notes that Plaintiff impermissibly filed three separate requests for relief as a single motion. Multiple motions should not be combined into a single filing. (See Govt. Code, § 70617(a)(4) [setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing].) Combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Here, Plaintiff paid one filing fee for three motions.  Plaintiff is admonished to comply with the Government Code § 70617(a)(4) or run the risk of having any improperly filed motions stricken by the Court.   

The Court is not inclined to award sanctions to a party who improperly combined motions and failed to pay filing fees. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a) [sanctions under Discovery Act not required where imposition would be unjust].)  Thus, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

                                       III.                        CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions