Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV33878, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33878    Hearing Date: November 15, 2024    Dept: 29

Herrera v. Rivera
21STCV33878
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Claudia Herrera to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Claudia Herrera to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Claudia Herrera to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)

Tentative

The motions to compel are granted in part.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

On September 14, 2021, Claudia Herrera (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Charly Romualdo Trigueros Rivera, Susan Trigueros, Monique Robledo (“Defendant”), and Does 1 through 21 for motor vehicle negligence arising out of an accident occurring on October 18, 2019.

On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Selvin Trigueros as Doe 1.

On December 18, 2023, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.  On the same day, Defendant also filed a cross-complaint against Charly Romualdo Trigueros Rivera, Selvin Trigueros, and Roes 1 through 20.

On October 22, 2024, Defendant filed these three motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to written discovery.

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).)

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).)

Discussion

Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.

On February 27, 2024, Defendant propounded the written discovery in question on Plaintiff. (Wilson Decls., ¶ 3; see also Exhs. A.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the discovery. (Id., ¶ 6.)

Defendant need show nothing more.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to compel are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.  In the chapters of the Civil Discovery Act governing interrogatories and requests for production, the Legislature has authorized sanctions in the context of a motion to compel initial responses “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” the motion to compel.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) & 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, however, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and so the requests for sanctions are denied.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant Monique Robledo’s motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Claudia Herrera to serve written, verified, code-complaint responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Claudia Herrera to serve written, verified, code-complaint responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Claudia Herrera to serve written, verified, code-complaint responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Requests for Production (Set One) within 15 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s requests for sanctions.

Moving Party is to provide notice.