Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV34650, Date: 2024-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV34650, Date: 2024-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34650 Hearing Date: May 1, 2024 Dept: 29

Cross-Complainant’s Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Cross-Complainant’s Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Production (Set One)

Tentative

The motions are denied.

Background

This case arises out of an alleged slip and fall incident in a Sprouts market on North Western Avenue in San Pedro on October 11, 2019.

On September 20, 2021, Edith Reynolds (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against SF Markets, LLC; Sprouts Farmers Market; Sprouts Farmers Market dba Sprouts; and Does 1 to 25, asserting causes of action for negligence and premises liability.

On September 30, 2021, Plaintiff amended her complaint to name Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. as Doe 1. (Plaintiff named additional defendants on November 5, 2021, and subsequently filed a request to dismiss those defendants on May 23, 2022.)

On December 3, 2021, Defendant SF Markets, LLC (“SF”) filed an answer.

On October 12 and 14, 2022, Plaintiff amended her complaint to name Single Source Security, Inc. dba Protos Security as Doe 1 and Single Source Security, LLC as Doe 2.

On February 28, 2023, Single Source Security, LLC filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against Prudent Security Solutions, Inc. (“Prudent”) and Does 1 through 500.

On March 1, 2023, Plaintiff amended her complaint to name Prudent as Doe 3.

On May 10, 2023, SF filed a cross-complaint against Single Source Security, LLC dba Protos Security and Roes 1 through 50. On the same day, SF amended the cross-complaint to name Prudent as Roe 1.

On July 20 and 21, 2023, Prudent filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against SF; First Washington Realty, Inc. (“First Washington”); GRI Park Plaza, LLC (“GRI”); Sprouts Farmers Market; Sprouts Farmers Market dba Sprouts; and Moes 1 through 30.

On August 1, 2023, SF, First Washington, and GRI filed an answer to Prudent’s cross-complaint.

As is relevant to the motions before the Court and set for hearing on May 1, 2024, SF served Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Single Source Security, Inc. dba Protos Security on September 6, 2023. (Crossin Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) As to Single Source Security, Inc. dba Protos Security, service was made by electronic transmission to the attorneys at the Acker & Whipple firm. (Id., Exh. A.)

Single Source Security, Inc. dba Protos Security did not respond to the discovery. SF sent a letter to attorney Childers at the Acker & Whipple firm on November 28, but no response was received. (Id., ¶ 3 & Exh. B.)

On March 13, 2024, SF filed these two motions. 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).) Requests for admission may be propounded on a party without leave of court 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by that party, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.020(b).)

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

SF served Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Single Source Security, Inc. dba Protos Security on September 6, 2023. (Crossin Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) Single Source Security, Inc. dba Protos Security was served by email to the attorneys at the Acker & Whipple firm. (Id., Exh. A.)

There are, however, two Single Source Security entities that have been named in this action. SF filed its cross-complaint against Single Source Security, LLC, dba Protos Security. That entity has appeared in this action and is represented by the Mr. Childers of the Acker & Whipple firm.

SF propounded the discovery at issue, however, to a different entity: Single Source Security, Inc., dba Protos Security. That entity has been named as a defendant to Plaintiff’s complaint but has not appeared (whether through the Acker & Whipple firm or otherwise).

Single Source Security, LLC and Single Source Security, Inc. appear to be different entities. Service on one (LLC) is not service on the other (Inc.). Accordingly, service of discovery directed to Single Source Security, Inc. on counsel for Single Source Security, LLC is not valid.

Accordingly, the two motions to compel Single Source Security, Inc. to provide responses to the discovery requests at issue are denied.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the two motions to compel.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.