Judge Michelle C. Kim, Case 22STCV06845 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

The current action stems from a traffic collision. On May 24, 2021, Paul Dono (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he was hit by a Los Angeles City Services Truck driven by employee Ron Muller (“Defendant Muller”). (Complaint, ¶ MV-1, also see Motion to Compel, p. 3:3-5.) Plaintiff states further that an MRI of his right knee revealed two separate meniscus tears. (Motion to Compel, 3:5-6.) After his claim to the City of Los Angeles (“Defendant LA”) was denied, Plaintiff filed his Complaint (Motion to Compel, 3:7-9.) This action was commenced on February 24, 2022. The instant Motion to Compel (“the Motion”) was filed on March 6, 2023. No opposition papers were filed.

The propounding party may bring motions to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for production if it believes (1) the responses received are evasive, or (2) incomplete, or (3) if the objections raised are meritless or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a).) A respondent has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel further responses. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

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, subds. (b), (c).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (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.)

If a motion to compel responses to interrogatories is filed, the Court may impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c).) Further, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

The Court will first note that no opposition papers were filed. “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” Cal. Rules of Court, 8.54(c).

Second, as CCP § 2030.220 provides, the answer in response to interrogatories shall be as complete as the information is reasonably available to the responding party. “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (CCP § 2030.220).

Here, Plaintiff has shown that their appropriately served interrogatories requested information that was reasonably necessary to their case: the address information for Defendant Muller. However, after several attempts at requesting the information from Defendant LA, Defendant LA refused to provide it, despite the fact that Defendant Muller is an employee of Defendant LA. On August 5, 2022, Plaintiff emailed Defendant LA to inquire whether Defendant LA would be accepting service of process on behalf of Defendant Muller, or filing an answer on his behalf. (Motion, 3:15-20). Defendant LA did not respond. (Ibid.) Plaintiff sent a follow up email on August 10, 2022, Defendant LA responded the same day saying they would try and find an “address at the City where Muller could be served.” (Ibid.) Defendant LA never responded with the requested information.

Interrogatories were then served on August 23, 2022. (Motion 3:21). Question 12.1 calls for the responding

party to provide the address of any person who (a) witnessed the incident, (b) made any statement

at the scene, (c) heard any statement made at the scene, and (d) has knowledge of the incident. (Motion, 3:22-25). Responses were served on September 22, 2022. (Motion, Exh. C.) However, rather than provide Defendant Muller’s address, Defendant LA directed Plaintiff to the Traffic Collision Report created the day of the accident. (Ibid.) On that collision report, the responding officer placed an address for Defendant Muller that further investigation revealed was a field office for the City of Los Angeles. (Declaration of Bradley H. Spear, hereinafter, “Spear Dec.”, ¶ 8, also see Exh. A.) Additionally, Defendant LA provided no justification or reasoning in their response to question 12.1.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant LA is in violation of CCP § 2030.220 and § 2030.300 for identifying the Traffic Collision Report without providing a substantive response. (Motion, Exh. C, p. 3:22-24). Plaintiff further contends that reference to the report means that Defendant LA had the report, was familiar with its contents, and therefore knew that Plaintiff did not have Defendant Muller’s address, and intentionally refused to provide it through their responses to the interrogatories.

CCP § 2030.300(a)(1) provides that: “(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete….” Here, it is clear that Defendant LA knew the information in the Traffic Collision report was insufficient and intentionally provided a response that was not code-compliant.

This is clear from the subsequent email exchanges regarding Plaintiff’s attempts to meet and confer about the insufficient answer. On September 23, 2022 the day after receiving responses, Plaintiff emailed Defendant LA indicating that their answers were insufficient. (Spear Dec., ¶ 13). Defendant LA responded by email that she had no control over whether she could accept service for Defendant Muller or disclose his personal information because Defendant LA had not received authorization from the City. Moreover, on September 23, 2022, Plaintiff emailed stating Defendant LA was obligated to provide the information because Defendant Muller was both a party and a witness. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Finally, on October 3, 2022, a final meet and confer letter was sent addressing the deficiencies and requesting a response by October 17, 2022. (Id. at ¶ 16). No response was ever received. Based on this timeline of events and the lack of opposition to this motion, the Court can only conclude that the response made to interrogatory question 12.1 was not made in good faith.

Plaintiff’s counsel has informed the court that the Motion and concurrently filed Separate Statement were prepared in 6.5 hours. Plaintiff’s counsel’s rate is $400.00 per hour. (Motion, 6:20 and 25.) Plaintiff’s counsel further estimated an additional 3.5 hours to review Defendant LA’s Opposition Papers and prepare a Reply Brief, however, no Opposition Papers have been filed, therefore nullifying the need for a Reply Brief. Accordingly, the Court will award sanctions in the amount of the hourly rate of $400.00 times 6.5 hours which equates to a total of $2,600.00.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories is GRANTED and monetary sanctions against Defendant City of Los Angeles are GRANTED to Plaintiff in the amount of $2,600.00.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. The Court is not available to hear oral argument on this date. If the parties do not submit on the tentative and want oral argument, the hearing will have to be continued, and the parties must work with the clerk to find an available date for the continuance.

Hon. Michelle Kim

Judge of the Superior Court