Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV02307, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV02307, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02307 Hearing Date: September 21, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The motions to compel are GRANTED. The requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part.

Background

On January 20, 2021, Plaintiff Carmen Libaridian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Charles Huenergardt (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision. The Complaint asserts two causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On August 28, 2023, Defendant filed motions to compel initial responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One). Defendant also requests monetary 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

On March 16, 2023, Defendant served Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One) on Plaintiff. (All Nachiappan Decl. Ex. A.) Defense counsel granted several extensions to allow time for Plaintiff to serve responses. (All Nachiappan Decl. ¶¶ 5-8.) However, as of the date of filing the motion, Defendant has not received a response to the discovery requests. (All Nachiappan Decl. ¶ 10.)

Defendant need show no more. The Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel initial responses.

The Court also grants, in part, Defendant’s requests sanctions. In light of the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses, as well as the economies of scale associated with preparing multiple parallel discovery motions, the Court awards sanctions on each motion in the amount of $412.50 (calculated based on 1.5 hours for each motion, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $235 per hour, plus the filing of fee of $60).

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions to compel.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide verified, code-compliant, written responses, without objection, to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One) within 30 days of notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS in part Defendant’s requests for sanctions.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the total amount of $1,237.50 ($412.50 per motion, multiplied by three motions) within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party to give notice.