Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 21AVCV00753, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21AVCV00753 Hearing Date: September 8, 2022 Dept: A14
Background
This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff Isabel Lopez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on or about September to December of 2016 and January through May of 2017, during her freshman year of high school, Defendant Henry Perez (“Defendant”) acted with the intent to cause a harmful and offensive contact with Plaintiff’s breasts, buttocks, and groin, in that he touched Plaintiff’s intimate parts with his hands in a rubbing and massaging manner. Plaintiff further alleges that, as a result of this sexually offensive contact, she was frozen in fear, panic, and shame. Plaintiff presents that this touch occurred on an almost daily basis when she would go to Defendant’s home to do her homework.
On September 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed her Complaint, alleging two causes of action for: (1) Sexual Battery, and (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”).
On January 24, 2022, Defendant filed his Answer.
On August 08, 2022, Defendant filed this Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, Set No: One (1); Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set No.: One (1); and Demand for Production of Document or Other Tangible Items to Plaintiff, Set No.: One (1), and for Monetary Sanctions (“Motion to Compel”).
No Opposition has been filed. “All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days. . .before the hearing.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).) The hearing is scheduled for September 08, 2022. As such, an Opposition was due on August 25, 2022. Should an Opposition be filed, it is now untimely.
-----
Legal Standard
Standard for Compelling Interrogatories – Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.290 provides that a party may bring a motion to compel responses to interrogatories, where the responding party failed to serve a timely response. Unless otherwise agreed, the responding party is required to serve response within 30 days after service of the discovery demand for production documents. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.290(b).) If the responding party fails to serve a timely response, the party “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . .” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.290(a).) The requesting party need not demonstrate “good cause to compel responses, nor that it satisfied the “meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 143 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)
Responses to interrogatories are due within 30 days after service of interrogatories. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260.) “The party propounding interrogatories and the responding party may agree to extend the time for service of a response to a set of interrogatories, or to particular interrogatories in a set, to a date beyond that provided in Section 2030.260.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.270(a).) While this agreement may be informal, it must be confirmed in writing. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.270(b).)
----
Standard for Compelling Responses to Requests for Production (“RFP”) – Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 provides that a party may bring a motion to compel responses to a request for production of documents, where the responding party failed to serve a timely response. Unless otherwise agreed, the responding party is required to serve response within 30 days after service of the discovery demand for production documents. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260(a).) If the responding party fails to serve a timely response, the party “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . .” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) The requesting party need not demonstrate “good cause to compel responses, nor that it satisfied the “meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 143 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)
-----
Discussion
Application – Defendant propounded upon Plaintiff his Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Demand for Inspection of Documents, Set One on May 10, 2022. The Proof of Service for each discovery request reflects the May 10, 2022 date. (Motion, Exh. A.) The discovery requests Defendant propounded seek information related to the alleged incidents, including the circumstances surrounding the event (Id., Exh. A.) Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel on June 17, 2022, requesting verified responses without objections within ten days. (Id., Exh. B.) To date, Plaintiff has not served verified responses to Defendant’s discovery requests, emails or telephone calls. (Id., Decl. of Ari Krell, ¶¶ 5-7.)
The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290 and 2031.300 and orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections within 10 days of notice of the court order.
-----
Sanctions
Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff and/or his counsel in the amount of $1,525.00 [2 hrs @ $350/hr + $475.00 to attend the hearing, including travel time] to cover the fees Defendant has incurred from this Motion to Compel.
“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 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.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c).)
“Except as provided in subdivision (d), 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 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. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, 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 this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c).) Subdivision (d) is not applicable here as it focuses on the failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as a result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system and the corresponding obligation to preserve discoverable information. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(d).)
Plaintiff does not present an explanation as to why the responses were not answered by the 30 day statutory deadline.
The Court imposes a sanction of $500.00 pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c) and § 2031.300(c).
-----
Conclusion
Defendant Henry Perez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, Set No: One (1) is GRANTED.
Defendant Henry Perez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set No.: One (1) is GRANTED.
Defendant Henry Perez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Document or Other Tangible Items to Plaintiff, Set No.: One (1) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Isabel Lopez is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within 10 days of notice of this Court Order.
A sanction of $500.00 pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) is imposed on Plaintiff Isabel Lopez and her counsel.