Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV17551, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 20STCV17551    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: 29

Tentative

The motion to compel is taken off calendar.

Background

Plaintiffs Melinda Rosenthal (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Advance Auto Parts, Inc., WORLDPAC, Inc., Wheels, Inc., Onorio Perez, and DOES 1 through 50, alleging damages from an auto incident. Plaintiff filed a Complaint on May 8, 2020, for the causes of action of Motor Vehicle Negligence and General Negligence.

On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff amended her complaint to name Advance Stores Company, Inc., as Does 1.

On May 12, 2022, Defendants Advance Stores Company, Inc., WORLDPAC, Inc., Advanced Auto Parts, Inc., and Onorio Perez (collectively “Defendants”) filed Answers to the Complaint.

On May 31, 2022, Defendants served Plaintiff with Request for Production of Documents (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One).  (Norman Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. A.)  After multiple extensions, on November 30, 2022, Plaintiff served objection-only responses to all three sets of discovery.  (Id., Exh. C.)  (Counsel’s declaration states that Plaintiff served objection-only responses to the Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and never served any objection to the Special Interrogatories, but the contents of Exhibit C to counsel’s declaration are to the contrary: objection-only responses to all three sets of discovery were served in November 2022.)

On March 27, 2023, Defendants filed the Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One).

Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition. 

On the evening of January 24, 2024, less than 24 hours before the hearing, however, Plaintiff filed an “objection” stating that she had provided responses earlier that day and that therefore the motion was moot.  Plaintiff also pointed out that Defendants had not participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”), as required by the Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courtrooms.

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 a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).)  In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

When a party moves to compel initial responses to interrogatories, “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 [the motion], 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).)  In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

When a party moves to compel initial responses to requests for production, “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 [the motion], 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020, subd. (a).)

“[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].”  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 407.)  Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses … the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.”  (Id. at pp. 408-409.)  This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.”  (Id. at p. 408.)  If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.”  (Id. at p. 409.) “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)  

Discussion

Defendants served Plaintiff with Request for Production of Documents (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One) in May 2022.  (Norman Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. A.)  After multiple extensions, Plaintiff provided objection-only responses to all three sets of discovery requests.  (Id., Exh. C.)

The remedy for improper objection-only responses may be obtained through filing a motion to compel further responses, and scheduling an IDC prior to the hearing.  Defendants did not do so.  Instead, Defendants filed a motion to compel initial responses, citing Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, and never scheduled an IDC.

If the objection-only responses were still in dispute, the Court would continue the hearing and direct Defendants to schedule an IDC prior to the hearing.  As Plaintiff has, however, provided substantive responses (albeit at the eleventh hour), the Court will take Defendants’ motion off calendar.

Moreover, the Court does not award any monetary sanctions to Defendants.  Defendants may well have had a meritorious motion to compel further responses, but Defendants did not properly file such a motion and schedule an IDC prior to the hearing.

Conclusion

The Court takes off calendar Defendants’ motion to compel as to the Request for Production of Documents, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.