Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 22AVCV00396, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AVCV00396    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: A14

Background

 

This is a Premises Liability action. Plaintiff Alisa Turner (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on March 04, 2022, while Plaintiff was at Defendant Walmart Inc. (“Defendant”) supercenter located at 44665 Valley Center Way Lancaster, CA, she slipped and fell due to the dangerous condition of Defendant’s sales floor.

 

On June 06, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Complaint alleging one cause of action for Premises Liability.

 

On July 11, 2022, Defendant filed its Answer.

 

On September 30, 2022, Defendant filed three motions:

 

 

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 set for December 06, 2022. Accordingly, an Opposition was due by November 21, 2022. Should an Opposition be filed, it is now untimely.

 

On November 22, 2022, Defendant filed three Notices of Non-Opposition, one for each corresponding motion.

 

-----

 

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 –

 

  1. Motion to Compel Requests for Production

 

Defendant propounded Plaintiff with its RFPs, Set One. The Proof of Service for the Request for Production is dated July 11, 2022. (Motion to Compel RFP Responses, Decl. of Laurie L. Marquis ¶ 3 and Exh. A.). Defendant presents that the responses were initially due on August 10, 2022, thirty days after propounding the RFPs pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.160. Defendant presents that its counsel, Laurie L. Marquis (“Marquis”) sent a meet and confer on August 30, 2022, requesting that Plaintiff provide responses no later than September 09, 2022. (Id., Decl. Laurie L. Marquis ¶ 6 and Exh. B.) To date, Plaintiff has not served verified responses to Defendant’s RFPs. (Id., Decl. Laurie L. Marquis ¶ 7.)¿ 

The Court¿GRANTS¿the Motion to Compel RFP Responses under¿Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § § 2031.300 and orders¿Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections within 10 days of notice of the court order.

 

  1. Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories

 

Defendant propounded Plaintiff with its Request for Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One. The Request for Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is dated July 11, 2021. (Motion to Compel Form Interrogatory Responses, Decl., Laurie L. Marquis ¶ 3 and Exh. A.) The Form Interrogatories Defendant propounded seeks information related to the to the day of the incident, including the circumstances surrounding the event (Id., Exhibit A.) Defendant presents that the responses were initially due on August 10, 2022, thirty days after propounding the RFPs pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260. Defendant presents that its counsel, Laurie L. Marquis (“Marquis”) sent a meet and confer email on August 30, 2022, requesting that Plaintiff provide responses no later than September 09, 2022. (Id., Decl. Laurie L. Marquis ¶ 6 and Exh. B.) To date, Plaintiff has not served verified responses to Defendant’s special interrogatories. (Id., Decl. Laurie L. Marquis ¶ 7.)¿

 

The Court¿GRANTS¿the Motion to Compel Special Interrogatory Responses under¿Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290¿and orders¿Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections within 10 days of notice of the court order.

 

  1. Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories

 

Defendant propounded Plaintiff with its Request for Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. The Request for Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is dated July 11, 2021. (Motion to Compel Special Interrogatory Responses, Decl., Laurie L. Marquis ¶ 3 and Exh. A.) The Special Interrogatories Defendant propounded seeks information related to the to the day of the incident, including the circumstances surrounding the event (Id., Exhibit A.) Defendant presents that the responses were initially due on August 10, 2022, thirty days after propounding the RFPs pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260. Defendant presents that its counsel, Laurie L. Marquis (“Marquis”) sent a meet and confer email on August 30, 2022, requesting that Plaintiff provide responses no later than September 09, 2022. (Id., Decl. Laurie L. Marquis ¶ 6 and Exh. B.) To date, Plaintiff has not served verified responses to Defendant’s special interrogatories. (Id., Decl. Laurie L. Marquis ¶ 7.)¿

 

The Court¿GRANTS¿the Motion to Compel Form Interrogatory Responses under¿Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290¿and orders¿Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections within 10 days of notice of the court order.

 

-----

 

Sanctions

 

It appears that Defendant is not seeking sanctions.

 

“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).) 

 

As required by statute, the Court imposes a sanction of $250.00 pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c) and § 2031.300(c). 

 

-----

 

Conclusion

 

Defendant Walmart, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Answers to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED.

 

Defendant Walmart, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Answers to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

 

Defendant Walmart, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Answers to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

 

A sanction of $250.00 pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) is imposed on Plaintiff and her counsel.