Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV24160, Date: 2024-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24160    Hearing Date: August 16, 2024    Dept: 29

Harris v. Alonso
21STCV24160
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Supplemental Interrogatory
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Supplemental Request for Production

Tentative

The motions to compel are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

On June 30, 2021, Plaintiff Earl Harris (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action for negligence against Luis Alonso, Jimenez Demolition, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 50 arising out of a vehicle accident on July 3, 2019.

On February 6, 2023, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint.

On August 7, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Gabriel Abikasis as Doe 1 and Pillar Building Group, LLC. As Doe 2.

As it relates to the matter set for hearing on August 16, Defendants served Plaintiff with a Supplemental Interrogatory and a Supplemental Request for Production on March 22, 2024.  (Palta Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff did not respond.

Defendants filed these two motions to compel on July 17, 2024.  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 written 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 2030.030 provides that the court may impose sanctions “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.”  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

Defendants have propounded a Supplemental Interrogatory and a Supplemental Request for Production of Documents on Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has not responded.  (Palta Decls., ¶¶ 3-7 & Exhs. A.)  Defendants need not show anything more.  Their motions to compel are granted.

Their requests for sanctions are denied.  The applicable statutes are Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (c), and section 2031.290, subdivision (c); these statutes authorize sanctions against a party or attorney “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” a motion to compel.  Here, however, no opposition was filed. 

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve a verified, written, code compliant response, without objections, to Defendants’ Supplemental Interrogatory within 14 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve a verified, written, code compliant response, without objections, to Defendants’ Supplemental Request for Production within 14 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Defendants’ requests for sanctions.

Moving party to give notice.