Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV41730, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41730    Hearing Date: November 28, 2023    Dept: 29

Tentative

The motions to compel initial responses to Plaintiff Manuel Alvarado’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Plaintiff Melissa Plazola’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) are GRANTED.

The requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part.

Background

This case arises out of an alleged vehicle accident on November 17, 2019 near the intersection of Manchester Avenue and Avalon Boulevard in Los Angeles. 

On November 12, 2021, Plaintiffs Manuel Alvarado, Melissa Plazola, Monique Castillo, and Alicia Jennings filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants Yuriana Martinez (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 60, asserting claims for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.  On February 16, 2022, Defendant Martinez filed an Answer.

On November 3, 2022, Plaintiffs served Defendant with a number of discovery requests, including Plaintiff Manuel Alvarado’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Plaintiff Melissa Plazola’s Form Interrogatories (Set One).  (Gill Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. 1.)  Defendant requested and received one extension of time to respond but never served responses.  (Id., ¶¶ 4-5, 8.)

Plaintiffs Manuel Alvarado and Melissa Plazola (“Plaintiffs”) filed motions to compel initial responses on March 8, 2023.  Defendant has not filed an opposition to either 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 November 3, 2022, Plaintiffs served Defendant with form interrogatories.  (Gill Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. 1.)  Defendant has not served responses.  (Id., ¶ 8.)

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

Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in part.  Given the relatively straightforward nature of motions to compel initial responses, and the economies of scale associated with preparing multiple discovery motions, Plaintiffs are awarded sanctions on each motion in the amount of $670 (for 1.5 hours of work, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $400 per hour, plus fees and expenses of $70).  (See id., ¶ 9.)  

Conclusion

The motions to compel are GRANTED.

Defendant is ORDERED to serve verified, code compliant, written responses, without objection, to Plaintiff Manuel Alvarado’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Plaintiff Melissa Plazola’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 21 days of notice of this ruling.

The requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part.

Defendant and counsel of record the Chavez Legal Group are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $670 to Plaintiff Manuel Alvarado within 21 days of notice of this ruling.

Defendant and counsel of record the Chavez Legal Group are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $670 to Plaintiff Melissa Plazola within 21 days of notice of this ruling.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.