Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV40336, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 21STCV40336    Hearing Date: November 18, 2024    Dept: 29

Grays v. City of Pasadena
21STCV40336
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production

Tentative

The motion to compel is granted.

The request for sanctions is denied.

Background 

On November 2, 2021, Charles Ervont Grays (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against City of Pasadena (“Defendant”), County of Los Angeles, California Department of Transportation, Ameesa Corporation, and Does 1 through 50. The complaint arises from an alleged trip and fall incident on December 27, 2020, at or near 216 S. Madison Avenue in the City of Pasadena.

Defendant filed an answer on April 15, 2022.

Plaintiff requested dismissal of California Department of Transportation on June 14, 2022, and of Ameesa Corporation on July 5, 2022.

On October 14, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to supplemental written discovery.

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).)

“In addition to the number of interrogatories permitted by Sections 2030.030 and 2030.040, a party may propound a supplemental interrogatory to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made by any party in response to interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070, 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).)

“In addition to the demands for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling permitted by this chapter, a party may propound a supplemental demand to inspect, copy, test, or sample any later acquired or discovered documents, tangible things, land or other property, or electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.050, 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).)

"Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).)

Discussion

Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to respond to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production of Documents.

On August 5, 2024, Defendant propounded the written discovery in question on Plaintiff. (Torrez Decl., ¶ 4; see also Exhs. 2 & 3.) Plaintiff failed to respond to discovery. (Id., ¶ 9.)

On October 14, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to compel.

The Court denies the motion as untimely.

When the complaint was filed, the Court assigned a trial date of May 2, 2023. 

On February 16, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion, continued the trial date to February 13, 2024, and extended all discovery deadlines based on the new trial date.

On January 29, 2024, on the stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the trial date to May 9, 2024, and extended all discovery deadlines based on the new trial date.

On April 24, 2024, on the stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the trial date to October 16, 2024, and extended all discovery deadlines based on the new trial date.

On September 19, 2024, on the stipulation of the parties, the Court extended the deadline for discovery for the limited purpose of allowing the parties to conduct depositions of certain identified percipient and expert witnesses.  There was no extension of the deadlines for written discovery.

On September 23, 2024, on the stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the trial date to January 16, 2025.  The Court again stated that it was extending the deadline for discovery for the limited purpose of allowing the parties to conduct depositions of certain identified percipient and expert witnesses.  There was no extension of the deadlines for written discovery.

Accordingly, the deadline to hear motions relating to written discovery was, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (a), October 1, 2024 – 15 days before (previous) trial date of October 16, 2024.

The motion is denied.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the motion of Defendant City of Pasadena to compel Plaintiff Charles Ervont Grays to respond to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production of Documents.

Moving Party is to provide notice.