Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV11146, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV11146 Hearing Date: August 3, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Background
On March
23, 2021, Plaintiff Alphonso Cunningham (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendants Mark
Nehme, Jose Sanchez Glindo, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, for negligence arising
from a motor vehicle incident that occurred on or about April 15, 2019. On September 1, 2021, Defendant Marc Nehme
(erroneously sued as Mark Nehme) (“Defendant”) filed his answer.
On December 14,
2022, Defendant Mark Nehme (“Defendant”) filed two motions: (1) a motion to compel
Plaintiff to respond to a Supplemental Interrogatory; and (2) a motion to
compel Plaintiff to respond to a Supplement Request for Production of
Documents. The hearing on both motions
was set for July 20, 2023.
The Court, by order
of June 7, 2023, took the two discovery motions off calendar, “to be reset for
hearing, if necessary, on another day to be determined by the Court on July 20,
2023.”
On July 20, 2023,
the Court reinstated the motions and set them for hearing on August 3, 2023.
Plaintiff has not
filed an opposition.
Legal Standard
A. Supplemental Interrogatories
“In addition to the number of interrogatories permitted
by Sections 2030.030 and 2030.040, a party may propound a supplemental interrogatory
to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made
by any party in response to interrogatories.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070, subd. (a).)
A party must respond to interrogatories (including
supplemental interrogatories) within 30 days after service. (Id., § 2030.260,
subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide
timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling
responses to the discovery. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives
the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or
work-product protection. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) A motion to compel responses
is not subject to a 45–day time limit, and the propounding party does not have
to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’
requirement.”¿ (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390,
404.)¿ Also, “[a] separate statement is not required when no response has been
provided to the request for discovery.”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)
B. Supplemental
Document Requests
“In addition to the demands for inspect, copying,
testing, or sampling permitted by this chapter, a party may propound a
supplemental demand to inspect, copy, test, or sample any later acquired or
discovered documents, tangible things, land or other property, or
electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the
party on whom demand is made.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.050, subd. (a).)
A party must respond to a request for production of
documents within 30 days after service. (Id., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a
party to whom requests for production of documents is directed does not provide
timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling
responses to the discovery. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) The party also waives
the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or
work-product protection. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) A motion to compel responses
is not subject to a 45–day time limit, and the propounding party does not have
to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’
requirement.”¿ (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390,
404.)¿ Also, “[a] separate statement is not required when no response has been
provided to the request for discovery.”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)
C. Request for Sanctions
“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 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).)
“[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
[production] 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 addition, the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging
in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses,
including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A
misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an
authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)
Discussion
Defendant electronically served Supplemental Interrogatory,
Set One, on Plaintiff on October 7, 2022. (Townsley Decl. [submitted with
interrogatory motion], ¶ 3
& Exh A.) As of the date of filing, Defendant has not
received any responses. (Id., ¶ 5.)
Defendant states that he
electronically served a supplemental document request on Plaintiff on October
7, 2022, and did not receive any response.
(Townsley Decl., [submitted with document request motion], ¶¶ 3,
5.) The attachment submitted along with
counsel’s declaration, however, is not a supplemental document request; instead
it is the supplemental interrogatory that is the subject of the other
motion. (Id., Exh. A.)
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion
to compel Plaintiff to respond to the supplemental interrogatory in
GRANTED. Defendant’s motion to compel
Plaintiff to respond to the supplemental document request is DENIED.
Defendant’s request for sanctions on
the supplemental interrogatory motion is GRANTED in the amount of $301.65 (2
hours of attorney time, multiplied by the billing rate of $120 per hour, plus $61.65
in costs). Defendant’s request for sanctions
on the supplemental document request motion is DENIED.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel
Plaintiff to respond to the supplemental interrogatory. Plaintiff must provide a response within 30
days of notice of the order.
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for
sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record in connection with the
supplemental interrogatory motion.
Plaintiff and counsel of record Hesam Yazdanpanah are ordered, jointly and
severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $301.65 to Defendant
within 30 days of notice of the order.
The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to compel
Plaintiff to respond to the supplemental document request.
The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for
sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record in connection with the
supplemental document request motion.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.