Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV37882, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37882    Hearing Date: March 13, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production (Set One)

Tentative

The motions to compel are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

On October 13, 2021, Plaintiff Alfredo Degado (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Samuel Deloeraserna, H & S Hauling, Inc., (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 50, asserting one cause of action for negligence arising from an automobile accident occurring on October 21, 2019.  The named defendants filed their answers on February 3 and April 4, 2023.

On February 1, 2023, Defendant Samuel Deloeraserna (“Defendant”) served Plaintiff with written discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Demand for Production (Set One). (Goldberg Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff did not respond to the discovery.  (Id., ¶¶ 4, 6.)

On April 24, 2023, Defendant filed these three motions to compel. 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).)

Discussion

Defendant served Plaintiff on February 1, 2023, with written discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Demand for Production (Set One). (Goldberg Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff has never provided responses.  (Id., ¶ 6.)

Defendant need show nothing more. Defendant’s motions to compel are GRANTED.

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 does not provide an independent basis to award sanctions; to the contrary, the statute expressly states that a sanctions award must be “authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.)  The statutes governing motions to compel initial responses to interrogatories and requests for production authorizes an award of sanctions “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, Plaintiff did not file any opposition, and so there is no authority under the Civil Discovery Act to award sanctions against Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel.

The Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Justice Moor, recently made this very point in City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504 (“sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery … without regard to any other provision of the Discovery Act”).  The Court is aware that the California Supreme Court has granted review of the City of Los Angeles case, but the Court notes that 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 to be persuasive.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motions to compel are GRANTED.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide verified, code-complaint written responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 21 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide verified, code-complaint written responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 21 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide verified, code-complaint written responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Demand for Production (Set One) within 21 days of notice.

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.