Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV31225, Date: 2024-06-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV31225 Hearing Date: June 25, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Compel
Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)
Motion for Order Deeming Plaintiff to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters
Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One)
Tentative
The motions are denied.
Background
On August 24, 2021, Eduardo Cruz Aquino
(“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Associated Ready Mixed Concrete, Inc.
(“Associated”), Larry Tramaine Jr. Mosley (“Mosley”), and Does 1 through 50 for
negligence – common carrier arising out of an automobile accident occurring on
August 28, 2019, at or near the intersection of East Washington Boulevard and
South Soto Street.
On September 11, 2023, Associated and Mosley filed
an answer.
On September 8, 2023, Associated served Plaintiff
with discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special
Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), and Requests for
Admission (Set One). (Auchard Decls., ¶
3 & Exhs. A.) After requesting and
receiving an extension of time to respond, Plaintiff timely served
objection-only responses on November 7, 2023.
(Id., ¶ 3 & Exhs. B.)
Following the exchange of correspondence,
Plaintiff served further responses to the Form Interrogatories and Requests for
Production (only), but they were not verified and still contained objections
that, Associated contends, do not have merit.
(Id., ¶¶ 4-6 & Exhs. F.) Further
correspondence did not resolve the dispute.
(Id., ¶ 6 & Exh. G.)
On March 19, 2024, Associated filed these
four motions: motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to the form
interrogatories, the special interrogatories, and the requests for production,
along with a motion for an order deeming Plaintiff to have admitted the truth
of the matters specified in the requests for admission.
No opposition has been filed.
Legal Standard
Interrogatories
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).)
Requests
for Production
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
A party must
respond to requests for admission within 30 days after service. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2033.250, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for admission are directed
does not provide a timely response, the propounding party “may move for an
order that … the truth of [the] matters specified in the requests be deemed
admitted.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) There is no time
limit for such a motion, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id.,
§ 2033.280; 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., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)
The court “shall”
make the order that the truth of the matters specified in the request be deemed
admitted unless the court “finds that the party to whom the requests for
admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a
proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial
compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); see St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014)
223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778-780.)
“It is mandatory
that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with
Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a
timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion [to deem
admitted the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd.
(c).)
Discussion
Associated served Plaintiff Form
Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for
Production (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One). (Auchard Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff timely served objection-only
responses on November 7, 2023. (Id., ¶ 3
& Exhs. B.) Plaintiff subsequently
served further responses to the Form Interrogatories and Requests for Admission
(only), but the responses were not verified and still contained objections. (Id., ¶¶ 4-6 & Exhs. F.)
As to the interrogatories and requests for
production, Associated moves for an order under Code of Civil Procedure
sections 2030.290 and 2031.300 compelling Plaintiff to provide initial
responses to the discovery. Those
motions are denied. Plaintiff has
responded. If Associated contends that
the objections to the discovery lack merit, the Civil Discovery Act provides a remedy
(a motion to compel further responses) to Associated under sections 2030.300 (for
interrogatories) and 2031.310 (for requests for production), subject to certain
procedural requirements. In this context,
an order compelling initial responses under sections 2030.290 and 2031.300 is
not available.
As to the requests for production, Associated
moves under Code of Civil Discovery section 2033.280 for a “deemed admitted”
order. That motion is denied. A “deemed admitted” order is available when a
party fails to respond to requests for admission. Here, Plaintiff has responded. If Associated contends that the objections to
the requests for admission lack merit, the Civil Discovery Act provides a remedy
(a motion to compel further responses) to Associated under section 2033.290,
subject to certain procedural requirements.
In this context, a “deemed admitted” order under sections 2033.280 is
not available.
In support of its motions, Associated cites Golf
& Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, but
in that case the moving party had filed a motion to compel further responses,
and the issue was whether the discovery responses that had been provided were
sufficient to trigger the 45-day time limit in the applicable statutes. Here, in contrast, Associated has not filed a
motion to compel further responses, and so the Court need not reach, and does
not reach, the issue of whether any such motion would be timely.
The motions are
denied.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES Associated’s
motions.