Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV33804, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV33804    Hearing Date: April 19, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Supplemental Interrogatories (Set Two)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set Two)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Supplemental Requests for Production (Set Two)

Tentative

The motions to compel are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on September 13, 2018. On September 3, 2020, Plaintiff Charles Volpe (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Courtney Pierre, Shana Pierre, James Pierre (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 50, asserting a cause of action for negligence.  Defendants filed their answers on March 24, 2022, September 1, 2022, and January 18, 2023.

On December 14, 2023, Defendant James Pierre served Plaintiff with discovery, including Supplemental Interrogatories (Set Two); Requests for Production (Set Two); and Supplemental Requests for Production (Set Two).  (Mendoza Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.)  Although some of the Requests for Production in Set Two are questionable at best, and likely objectionable, Plaintiff did not object or otherwise respond.  (Id., ¶ 5.)

On February 15, 2024, Defendants filed and served these three motions to compel.  Defendants also seek sanctions.

No opposition has been filed.

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., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Discussion

Defendant James Pierre served Plaintiff with Supplemental Interrogatories (Set Two), Requests for Production (Set Two), and Supplemental Requests for Production (Set Two) on December 14, 2023.  (Mendoza Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.)   Plaintiff did not respond.  (Id., ¶ 5.)

Defendants do not need to show anything more.  Their motions to compel are granted.

Defendants’ requests for sanctions are denied. 

Defendants seek sanctions under section 2030.290, subdivision (c); section 2031.300, subdivision (c); and sections 2023.010 and 2023.030.  Section 2030.290, subdivision (c), and section 2031.300, subdivision (c), authorize an award of sanctions against a party or attorney “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” a motion to compel initial responses; here, no opposition was filed.  And sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 “do not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery.”  (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504.)  (The Court is aware that the California Supreme Court has granted review of the City of Los Angeles case, but the Court notes that the order granting review, filed on January 25, 2023, states that pending review, the appellate opinion “may be cited,” including “for its persuasive value.”  The Court finds the reasoning of Justice Moor in the City of Los Angeles case to be persuasive.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant James Pierre’s Supplemental Interrogatories (Set Two) within 21 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant James Pierre’s Requests for Production (Set Two) within 21 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant James Pierre’s Supplemental Requests for Production (Set Two) within 21 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Defendants’ requests for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.