Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV31288, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31288    Hearing Date: August 31, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Solano’s Motions to Compel Arnold’s responses to the Discovery are GRANTED.

Background

On August 18, 2020, Plaintiff Rosalba Tellez and Eliseo Parra (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence against Defendants Dianna Jessica Solano (“Solano”), Arcashia Danelle Arnold (“Arnold”), and Gus A Makridis (“Makridis”).

On July 12, 2023, Solano filed the instant Motions to Compel Arnold’s responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One).  There is no opposition to the Motions.

Legal Standard

When a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a).)  Sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)  

Discussion

Solano moves to compel Arnold’s responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (collectively the “Discovery”).  On February 28, 2023, Solano propounded the Discovery on Arnold.  (River Decl., ¶ 2.)  Arnold failed to provide timely responses, and after meeting and coffering the Parties agreed that Arnold would respond to the Discovery by June 21, 2023.  (Id. at ¶¶ 4-11.)  To date, Arnold has failed to provide responses to the Discovery.  (Id at ¶ 12.)

The Court finds that Arnold has failed to timely respond to the Discovery, and has failed to comply with her discovery obligation.  No sanctions were sought in the Motions.

Thus, Solano’s Motions to Compel Arnold’s responses to the Discovery are GRANTED.

Conclusion

Solano’s Motions to Compel Arnold’s responses to the Discovery are GRANTED.

Arnold is ORDERED to serve verified, code-complaint written responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.