Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV37218, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37218    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: 29

Drohan v. Van Voris
21STCV37218
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 to compel are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

On October 8, 2021, Brian Drohan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Cyrus Van Voris, Robin F. Sadin-Voris (collectively “Defendants”) and Does 1 through 20, asserting a cause of action for negligence arising out of a vehicle accident on Lincoln Boulevard in Marina Del Rey on October 8, 2019.

On November 13, 2023, Defendants filed an answer.

On January 10, 2025, Defendant Cyrus Van Voris (“Defendant”) filed these three motions, seeking an order compelling Plaintiff to provide initial responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production.  Defendant also seeks sanctions.

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 served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One) on November 13, 2023.  (Ward Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff did not serve responses.  (Id., ¶ 8.)

Defendant need not show anything more.  The motions to compel are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.  In the code sections addressing a motion to compel initial responses to interrogatories and requests for production (cited above), the Legislature has authorized sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” the motion.  Here, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve written, verified, code-compliant responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve written, verified, code-compliant responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve written, verified, code-compliant responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Requests for Production (Set One) within 10 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Defendant to give notice.