Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV28689, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV28689, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28689 Hearing Date: October 11, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant Jose Luis Espinoza to respond to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production are GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part.

Background

On August 4, 2021, Plaintiff Dylan Michael Coberly (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against Defendants Eduardo Gastelum Corrales, and Jose Luis Espinoza for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The complaint asserts causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, and (3) statutory liability.

On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed these motions to compel discovery responses. Plaintiff now moves for orders compelling Defendant Espinoza to serve full, complete, verified answers, without objections, to (1) Special Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (3) Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff also moves for sanctions.

Additional discovery motions were set for hearing on October 10, 2023.

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, 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).)

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., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Discussion

On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff served Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Espinoza. (Aziz Decls. ¶ 4 & Exhs. A.) Defendant has not served responses. (Id., ¶¶ 5-10, Exhs. B, C.)

Plaintiff need not show anything more. Plaintiff’s motions to compel are granted.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are also granted in part. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $660 per motion, calculated as 2 hours of attorney time per motion, multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $300 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee. (See Aziz Decls., ¶ 15.)

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Espinoza to respond to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One.

Defendant Jose Luis Espinoza is ordered to serve complete, verified, and code-compliant responses, without objection, to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One within 30 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in part. Defendant Espinoza and Defendant’s counsel of record the Chavez Legal Group are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant under the Civil Discovery Act in the total amount of $1,980 within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.