Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV40687, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV40687, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40687 Hearing Date: October 31, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The motions to compel are GRANTED.

The requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part.

Background

This case arises out of an alleged vehicle accident on November 5, 2019. On November 4, 2021, Plaintiff Damien Allen (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint asserting a single cause of action for negligence against Defendants Francisca Irheta, Jose Alvarado (“Defendants”), and Does 1 through 50. Defendants filed their answer on May 22, 2023.

Also on May 22, Defendants served Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) on Plaintiff. (Webb Decls., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff has not responded to these discovery requests. (Id., ¶¶ 2-4.)

Defendants filed the three motions to compel that are currently before the Court on August 28, 2023. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition.

On October 10, 2023, the Court granted the motion of Plaintiff’s counsel to be relieved as counsel.

Discussion

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, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 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

On May 22, 2034, Defendants served Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) on Plaintiff. (Webb Decls., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff has not responded to these discovery requests. (Id., ¶¶ 2-4.)

Defendants need show nothing more. Their motions to compel are GRANTED.

Defendants’ requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in part. Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses to discovery, and the economies of scale associated with preparing multiple parallel motions, the Court sets sanctions on each motion in the amount of $335.21, calculated as 1.25 hours of attorney time, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $160.17 per hour; plus one hour of legal assistant time, multiplied by the billing rate of $75 per hour; plus a $60 filing fee. (See id., ¶ 6.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ three motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve verified, written, code-compliant responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) within 30 days of notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS in part Defendants’ requests for sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the total amount of $1,005.63 ($335.21 per motion, multiplied by three motions) to Defendants within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving parties to give notice.