Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV10256, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV10256 Hearing Date: September 20, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendant’s motions to compel are GRANTED in part.
Defendant’s
request for sanctions is GRANTED in part.
Background
The Complaint in this action was filed on
March 15, 2021, and a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) was filed on July 22,
2022. According to the FAC, Plaintiffs Tova Fagan (“Plaintiff”), Barry Fagan,
and Noah Fagan were all injured in a vehicle accident on December 11, 2020, caused
by the negligence of Defendant Paul Nichole Lawry (“Defendant”) and/or Does 1
through 50.
Current before the Court are three
discovery motions filed by Defendant on July 19, 2023: (1) Motion to Compel Responses
to Form Interrogatories (Set One); (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special
Interrogatories (Set One); and (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for
Production (Set One). In all three motions, Defendant also seeks monetary
sanctions.
Plaintiff filed a combined opposition to
the three motions on September 6. Defendant filed a reply on September 13.
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).)
“[T]he
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.” (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, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 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).)
“[T]he
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.” (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 has shown that she served Form
Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for
Production (Set One) on Plaintiff, and Plaintiff never responded. (Weissman
Decls., ¶¶ 2, 5-6 & Exh. A.). That is generally all that is required to
obtain a court order compelling initial discovery responses.
In her opposition, Plaintiff makes three arguments. First, Plaintiff states
in general terms that both she and her attorney have had periods of illness. The
discovery was served a year ago, however, and, notwithstanding whatever health
issues Plaintiff and her counsel have faced, there has been plenty of time to
respond to discovery.
Second, Plaintiff states that the initial trial date was in September
2022, and although the Court continued the trial date, the discovery cutoff is
determined based upon the initial trial date and so has passed. Although that
is generally true (see Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (b)), the provisions
of Code of Civil Procedure section 599, enacted shortly after the onset of the
COVID-19 pandemic, temporarily suspended this general rule and provide that a
continuance of the trial date will extend the discovery deadlines.
Third, Plaintiff argues, again in general terms, that the discovery is
unduly burdensome. After reviewing the discovery requests, the Court finds
nothing excessive.
In reviewing the discovery requests, however, the Court has identified
one concern. Request for Production No.
12 asks for documents related to the Plaintiff’s legal status. The Court, on
its own motion, will strike this request: multiple statutes prohibit requesting
information regarding immigration status in a civil proceeding, such
information is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence, and inquiring into legal status is an unwarranted
invasion of privacy.
In all other respects, the motions to compel are GRANTED.
As to sanctions, Plaintiff has unsuccessfully opposed a motion to compel,
she has not acted with substantial justification, and there is no evidence that
the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Accordingly, the Court will award
monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $360 per motion
(calculated based on 1.5 hours per motion, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate
of $200 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee).
Conclusion
The motions to compel are GRANTED in part.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide verified, code-compliant responses,
without objection, to Defendant’s Form
Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 30 days
of notice of this order.
The Court, on its own motion, STRIKES Defendant’s Request for Production
No. 12.
As to the remainder of Defendant’s Request for Production (Set One), Plaintiff
is ORDERED to provide verified, code-compliant, written responses, without
objection within 30 days of
notice of this order.
Defendant’s
request for sanctions is GRANTED in part.
Plaintiff is
ORDERED to pay Defendant monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,080 ($360
per motion multiplied by three motions) within 30 days of notice of this order.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.