Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV24597, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV24597, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24597 Hearing Date: January 26, 2024 Dept: 29

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Admission (Set Two), filed December 13, 2023.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two), filed December 13, 2023.
Defendant’s motion to compel initial responses to Requests for Production (Set One), filed December 20, 2023.
Defendant’s motion to compel initial responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One), filed December 20, 2023.

Tentative

The Court CONTINUES Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to requests for admission and to form interrogatories for approximately 90 days so that the parties may complete an IDC.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motions to compel initial responses to requests for production and special interrogatories.

Background

On July 2, 2021, Plaintiff Bradley Dodds (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action asserting one cause of action for motor vehicle negligence against County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”), Santiago Javier Vazquez, and Does 1 through 10. Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint on July 29, 2021.

There are currently four discovery motions before the Court and set for hearing on January 18, 2024.

First, on December 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his Requests for Admission (Set Two). Defendant filed an opposition on December 27.

Second, also on December 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his Form Interrogatories (Set Two). Defendant filed an opposition on December 27, and Plaintiff filed a reply on January 3.

Third, on December 20, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to compel initial responses to its Requests for Production (Set One). Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 9.

Fourth, also on December 20, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to compel initial responses to its Special Interrogatories (Set One). Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 9.

Legal Standard

“On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete. (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)

Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Id., subd. (c).)

A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration and a separate statement or, in the discretion of the Court, a “concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Id., subd. (b)(1) & (b)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)

“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 further response, 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., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Id., subd. (c).)

“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 further 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., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

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., § 2023.020, subd. (a).)

“[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 407.) Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses … the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.” (Id. at pp. 408-409.) This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.” (Id. at p. 408.) If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.” (Id. at p. 409.) “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Discussion

Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission and Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide further responses to Requests for Admission (Set Two), Nos. 11-22, 25, and 27-32, and further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two), No. 17.1.

The Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts (the “Standing Order”) expressly provides that “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).” (Standing Order, at p. 7.) “PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.” (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to discovery without having engaged in an IDC. Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the motions to compel for approximately 90 days so that the parties may complete an IDC.

The Court is aware that the trial date in this matter is February 6, 2024. If Plaintiffs wish to pursue their motions, the Court notes that they may need to seek a continuance of the trial date.

Defendants’ Motions to Compel Initial Responses to Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories

On October 23, 2023, Defendant propounded Request for Production (Set Two) and Special Interrogatories (Set Two) on Plaintiff through electronic service. (Mallory Decls., ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff asserts, however, that electronic service was not properly effected. Plaintiff states that he has consistently stated that electronic service must be sent to both of two addresses (brian@poulter.co and eservice@poulter.co), but here Defendant served only the first of the two addresses. (Poulter Decls., ¶¶ 2-4.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 provides for (among other things) electronic service of discovery documents. Subdivision (b)(3) requires the person effecting service to “confirm the appropriate electronic service address for the counsel being served,” and subdivision (b)(4) requires electronic service on any counsel “who provides an electronic service address.” California Rule of Court, rule 2.251(b), (c), and (g) require parties to provide an electronic address for service and to file a notice of any change in such address.

Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that Defendant did not properly effect service of the discovery at issue. Defendant did not serve the addresses provided by Plaintiff’s counsel for electronic service.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production (Set Two) and Special Interrogatories (Set Two).

Conclusion

The Court CONTINUES Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to requests for admission and to form interrogatories for approximately 90 days so that the parties may complete an IDC.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motions to compel initial responses to requests for production and special interrogatories.

Defendant’s counsel is ORDERED to give notice.