Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV20011, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20011    Hearing Date: April 2, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production (Set One)

Tentative

The motions are granted.

Background

On May 27, 2021, Kyung Sil Kim (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Hyo Rang Lee, M.D. (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 100 for Medical Malpractice/Professional Negligence arising from a medical procedure on February 25, 2020.  On October 3, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.

On October 27, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One). (Rubaum Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A and Exh. B.)  No responses were provided.  (Id., ¶¶ 3-5.)

On January 31, 2024, Defendant filed these motions to compel.  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).) Requests for admission may be propounded on a party without leave of court 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by that party, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.020(b).)

Discussion

On October 27, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with written discovery. (Rubaum Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A and B.) Plaintiff has not responded. (Id.)

Defendant need not show anything more.  The motions to compel are GRANTED.

The requests for sanctions are DENIED.  Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), an award of sanctions must be “authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)  For interrogatories and requests for production, the statutes authorize sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” the motion to compel initial responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).) 

The Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Justice Moor, made this very point in City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504 (“sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery … without regard to any other provision of the Discovery Act”).  The Court is aware that the California Supreme Court has granted review of that case.  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 to be persuasive.

Here, no opposition has been filed.  Accordingly, there is no statutory basis for an award of sanctions.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide verified, code-compliant, written responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One), within 21 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.