Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV00687, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV00687    Hearing Date: August 14, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE:                 August 14, 2024 

CASE NUMBER:                  24TRCV00687

CASE NAME:                        Shela Carter v. Marie Watson, et al.

MOVING PARTY:                Defendants, Stephen Francis Watson, successor trustee of the Marie Agnes Watson Trust dated October 31, 1991 (DOE 1), Gregory James Wholey, trustee of the Gregory James Wholey trust dated April 28, 2017 (DOE 2)

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff, Shela Carter (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE:                       Not Set.

MOTION:                              (1) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One

                                                (2) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One a

                                                (3) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

                                                (4) Requests for Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) GRANTED

                                                (2) GRANTED

                                                (3) GRANTED

                                                (4) Requests for Monetary Sanctions is tentatively denied until Defense counsel can provide this Court more proof.

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Factual 

            On February 28, 2024, Plaintiff, Shela Carter (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Maria Watson, Stephen Watson, W.W. Property Management, and DOES 1 through 100. The complaint alleges a cause of action for premises liability. The complaint alleges that Defendants negligently and carelessly owned, operated, maintained, controlled and inspected the subject premises so as to create and/or permit the existence of a dangerous condition of the subject premises and/or on the subject premises. The dangerous condition consisted of a dilapidated ceiling at the subject premises. Plaintiff contends the ceiling fell onto the Plaintiff causing injury.

            On April 9, 2024, Defendants, Stephen Francis Watson, successor trustee of the Maria Agnes Watson Trust dated October 31, 1991 (DOE 1), Gregory James Wholey, trustee of the Gregory James Wholey Trust dated April 28 2017 (DOE 2) (hereinafter, “Moving Defendants”) note that they served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. Moving Defendants note that the discovery responses were due on Mary 13, 2024. However, on June 21, 2024, as the discovery responses had not yet been received, moving defense counsel notes that he wrote a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting the said responses be served within ten (10) days. However, as of the date of the filing of these motions, Moving Defendants assert that Plaintiff had not responded to the discovery. As such, Defendants have filed these motions to compel Plaintiff’s initial responses to each of their propounded Motions to Compel Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.

B. Procedural 

 On July 9, 2024, Moving Defendants filed these Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. To date, no opposition has been filed.  

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

            Further, where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required. 

B.     Discussion

Here, the Court notes that based on the moving papers, and lack of opposition brief, that Plaintiff has entirely failed to respond to the Moving Defendants’ propounded discovery. As such, Plaintiff is in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.010. Thus, this Court GRANTS Moving Defendants’ motions and compels Plaintiff to provide code-compliant, verified responses to the discovery, without objection, on or before September 6, 2024. 

C.    Sanctions

            In connection with Defendant’s motions to compel, Moving Defendants have requested monetary sanctions be imposed on Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s attorney in the amount of $561.65 per motion ($1,684.95 total). The Court notes however, that Moving Defense Counsel’s declaration (“Ward Decl.”) does not specify her hourly rate or how long it took her to prepare the motions. For example, she notes that for each motion, her office is seeking a total of $500 for the reasonable cost of preparing the motion in addition to the filing cost of $61.65 per motion. (Ward  Decl., ¶ 5.) However, Defense counsel does not illustrate why that is. As such, this Court will need further clarification if Moving Defendants seek the amount of monetary sanctions that they are on these motions.

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Moving Defendants’ Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s  Responses are GRANTED and Plaintiff is to provide code-compliant, verified responses, without objection to the propounded discovery on or before September 6, 2024.

Further, monetary sanctions may be awarded, but will require further proof from Moving Defendants’ counsel prior to awarding.

Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice.