Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV46280, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV46280, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46280 Hearing Date: April 15, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One), filed by Defendants Sportsmen’s Lodge Owner, LLC and Midwood Management Corp.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

The request for sanctions is denied.

Background

On December 20, 2021, Plaintiff Jody Swafford (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“County”), City of Los Angeles (“City”), Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (“LAHSA”), State of California (“State”), Sportsmen’s Lodge Owner, LLC (“Owner”), Midwood Management Corp. (”Management”), and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for negligence, violation of Government Code sections 815.2(a) and 820(a), and dangerous condition of public property, arising out of a slip and fall incident on March 15, 2021.

County filed its answer on July 7, 2022. Owner and Management filed their answer on September 9, 2022.

City filed its answer on July 5, 2023. On the same day, City filed a cross-complaint against LAHSA, Owner, Management, and Roes 1 through 20.

On December 8, 2023, the Court granted the motion of Plaintiff’s counsel to be relieved.

On January 12, 2024, Owner and Management (collectively “Defendants”) served Plaintiff with discovery, including Special Interrogatories (Set One). (Carpenter Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh A.) Defendants served Plaintiff by mail (Id., Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not respond. (Id., ¶ 4.)

On March 4, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to the Special Interrogatories. Defendants also seek sanctions. The motion was served on Plaintiff by mail.

Plaintiff has not filed any opposition.

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 2030.030 provides that the court may impose sanctions “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.” 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

Defendants served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories (Set One) on January 12, 2024. (Carpenter Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh A.) Plaintiff has not served a response. (Id., ¶ 4.)

Defendants need not show anything more. Their motion to compel is GRANTED.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

Defendants seek sanctions under section 2030.290, subdivision (c), and sections 2023.010, et seq. Section 2030.290, subdivision (c), authorizes an award of sanctions against a party or attorney “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” a motion to compel initial responses; here, no opposition was filed. Sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 “do not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery.” (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504.) (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 in the City of Los Angeles case to be persuasive.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve written, code-compliant, verified responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 30 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Defendants’ request for sanctions.

The Court ORDERS moving parties to give notice.