Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00785, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00785    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 April 9, 2024¿ 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                   23TRCV00785

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Christina Maier, et al. v. Kate Dunitz, et al.  

¿¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                 (1) Plaintiffs, Christina Maier, Tierney Mauge, and Traci Maier

¿¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:        (1) Defendant, Kate Dunitz

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                        May 19, 2025

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Timreuka Trass’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

                                                (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Timreuka Trass’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

                                                (3) Requests for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:                  (1), (2), (3) ARGUE; has Defendant served supplemental responses, regardless of whether a Separate Statement is required by Rule of Court 3.1345?  Would that not moot the motions? Or were the supplemental responses unverified?

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

On March 16, 2023, Plaintiffs, Christina Maier, Tierney Mauge, and Traci Maier (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, Kate Dunitz, and DOES 1 through 10. On August 29, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Conversion; (2) Defamation (Slander); and (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff, Christina Maier propounded Form Interrogatories, Set Three and Requests for Admission on Defendant. Responses by Defendant were due on or before January 5, 2024. However, on January 14, 2024, Plaintiff notes that Defense Counsel emailed objections with no responses to each of the discovery requests. Plaintiff note that on February 1, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter, but that despite this, there has been no response or any attempt to resolve the matter. As such, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Three, and Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted.

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff Christina Maier filed these motions to compel Defendant’s further responses. On March 27, 2024, Defendant filed opposition briefs. On April 2, 2024, Plaintiff Christina Maier filed reply briefs.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A.    Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.

            Lastly, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (a), provides that “[o]n receipt of a particular response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.”  

Additionally, “Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)  

B.    Discussion

The motions assert that Defendant failed to timely file responses to Plaintiff’s propounded discovery, and the Reply argues that compliance with the Separate Statement requirement of California Rule of Court 3.1345 is irrelevant when the responding party has failed to provide a complying verified response.  The Court will allow oral argument as to the factual issue of whether verified tardy or supplemental responses have been provided or not.  If so, the motions to compel and motion to deem RFAs admitted would be moot.  If not, defense counsel should be prepared to pay monetary sanctions and face an order requiring verified Code-compliant responses without objection.