Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV36571, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV36571 Hearing Date: May 16, 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)
Tentative
The motions are granted.
The requests for sanctions are denied.
Background
On October 4, 2021,
Ralph Peck (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Rwin Lesile Jasper and Does
1 to 15 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident
occurring on October 4, 2019, at or near the intersection of Reseda Boulevard
and Devonshire in Los Angeles.
On October 18, 2023, Irwin
Leslie Jasper (erroneously sued as Rwin Leslie Jasper) (“Defendant”) filed an answer
to the complaint.
On October 18, 2023, Defendant served
Plaintiff with written discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special
Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One). (Yoakum
Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff
has not served any responses. (Id., ¶
2.)
On March 14, 2024, Defendant filed
these three motions to compel. Defendant
also seeks sanctions. Plaintiff has not
filed any opposition.
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).)
Discussion
Defendant served Plaintiff with Form
Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production
(Set One) on October 18, 2023. (Yoakum Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff has not responded to these discovery
requests. (Id., ¶ 2.)
Defendant
need not show anything more. The motions
to compel are granted.
Defendant’s
requests for sanctions are denied.
Section 2031.010 defines “misuses of the discovery
process” but does not authorize sanctions.
Section 2023.030 authorizes sanctions only “[t]o the
extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or
any other provision of this title.” The
Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Justice Moor, made this very point in City
of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466,
504. (The Court is aware that the
California Supreme Court has granted review of the City of Los Angeles
case. The order granting review, filed
on January 25, 2023, states that pending review, the appellate opinion “may be
cited,” including “for its persuasive value.”
The Court finds the reasoning of Justice Moor, which is based on the
plain language of the applicable statutes, to be persuasive.)
Section 2030.290, subdivision (c), and section
2031.300, subdivision (c), authorize sanctions against a party or attorney “who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes” a motion to compel. Here, no opposition was filed.
The Court recognizes that other provisions of the
Civil Discovery Act authorize sanctions under different circumstances, without
an unsuccessful opposition to a motion to compel. (E.g., Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.450, subd.
(g)(1) & 2033.280, subd. (c).) Here,
however, the Legislature provided that sanctions may be awarded only upon an
unsuccessful motion or opposition.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motions to Compel.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve written, verified,
code-complaint responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Form
Interrogatories (Set One), within 21 days of notice.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve written, verified,
code-complaint responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories
(Set One), within 21 days of notice.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve written, verified,
code-complaint responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Requests for
Production (Set One), within 21 days of notice.
The Court DENIES Defendant’s requests for
sanctions.
Moving party is
ORDERED to give notice.