Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV06667, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV06667    Hearing Date: November 21, 2024    Dept: 34

Fan Pena Chitiva v. Alicia Malone (24STCV06667)

1.               Defendant Alicia Malone’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Number One) is MOOT.

2.               Defendant Alicia Malone’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Number One) is MOOT.

3.               Defendant Alicia Malone’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Number One) is MOOT.

      Defendant’s Requests for Sanctions are DENIED.

Background

             On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff Fan Pena Chitiva (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Alicia Malone (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 arising from injuries sustained by Plaintiff following a vehicle collision with Defendant alleging causes of action for negligence.

            On May 21, 2024, Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.  

On October 3, 2024, Defendant filed: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests For Production, Set One (“RFPs”); (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROGs”); and (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROGs”). On November 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed oppositions to Defendant’s motions. As of November 15, 2024, Defendant has not filed a reply.  

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).) 

Discussion

            Defendant propounded Requests for Production of Documents (“RPDs”), Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), and Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), on Plaintiff on May 21, 2024. (RPDs Motion, Jones-Williams Decl., Exh. A; FROGs Motion, Jones-Williams Decl., Exh. A; SROGs Motion, Jones-Williams Decl., Exh. A.)

            Defendant moves the court to compel Plaintiff to serve responses to the RPDs, FROGs, and SROGs, without objections, as Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s discovery requests. (RPDs Motion, at p. 3; FROGs Motion, at p. 3; SROGs Motion, at p. 3.) Defendant’s counsel declares that Plaintiff’s counsel was granted an extension to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests by September 9, 2024. (RPDs Motion, Jones-Williams Decl., Exh. D; FROGs Motion, Jones-Williams Decl., Exh. D; SROGs Motion, Jones-Williams Decl., Exh. D.) Defendant requests $410.00 in monetary sanctions per motion, for a total of $1,230.00 against Plaintiff. (RPDs Motion, at p. 5; FROGs Motion, at p. 5; SROGs Motion, at p. 5.)

            In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff’s counsel’s firm was not aware of Defendant’s discovery requests since they were served to an email address that was not being actively monitored. (RPDs Opp., at p. 3; FROGs Opp., at p. 3; SROGs Opp., at p. 3.) Counsel was assigned to Plaintiff’s case when the firm learned of Defendant’s requests. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel then requested an extension to respond which was granted by Defendant. (Ibid.) However, Plaintiff’s counsel abruptly left the firm without having responded to Defendant’s request. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s new counsel learned that Defendant had filed these discovery motion after being assigned to Plaintiff’s case. (RPDs Opp., at p. 4; FROGs Opp., at p. 4; SROGs Opp., at p. 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares to have served verified responses without objections to Defendant’s discovery requests on October 30, 2024. (RPDs Opp., Oglesby Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. A; FROGs Opp., Oglesby Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. A; SROGs Opp., Oglesby Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. A.) Plaintiff also argues that monetary sanctions are not warranted since Plaintiff did not willfully misuse the discovery process. (RPDs Opp., at p. 5; FROGs Opp., at p. 5; SROGs Opp., at p. 5.)

            Defendant has not filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition.

            There is no evidence before the court that would indicate that Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s discovery requests or any issues with Plaintiff’s responses purported to Defendant on October 30, 2024. As such, Defendant’s motions are moot and Defendant’s request for sanctions are denied.

Conclusion

1.               Defendant Alicia Malone’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Number One) is MOOT.

2.               Defendant Alicia Malone’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Number One) is MOOT.

3.               Defendant Alicia Malone’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Number One) is MOOT.

Defendant’s Requests for Sanctions are DENIED.