Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV36936, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV36936, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36936 Hearing Date: November 27, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One).

The Court GRANTS in part Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions.

Background

This action arises from an alleged vehicle accident on April 19, 2021. On October 6, 2021, Plaintiff Denise Chow (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 10, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. On April 28, 2023, Defendant filed its answer.

On May 26, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery requests, including Special Interrogatories (Set One). (Paulick Decl., ¶ 6 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not respond. (Id., ¶ 7.)

On October 27, 2023, Defendant filed this motion for an order compelling Plaintiff to respond to the Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One). Defendant also requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

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).)

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).)

“[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 407.) Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses … the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.”¿ (Id. at pp. 408-409.)¿ This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.”¿ (Id. at p. 408.)¿ If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.”¿ (Id. at p. 409.) “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Discussion

On May 26, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories (Set One). (Paulick Decl., ¶ 6 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not respond. (Id., ¶ 7.)

Defendant need show nothing more. The motion to compel is GRANTED.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in part. Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses, and the economies of scale associated with preparing multiple discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions in the amount of $345, based on 1.5 hours of work, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $230 per hour. (See id., ¶ 9.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve verified written code compliant responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 30 days of service of this order.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in part.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff and counsel of record the Sardarbegian Law Offices, jointly and severally, to pay Defendant monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $345 within 30 days of service of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.