Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV00933, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00933    Hearing Date: February 28, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One) filed by Defendant Yongun Park.

Tentative

The motions are granted.

The requests for sanctions are granted in part.

Background

This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident on January 29, 2020, on the 101 Freeway near the Universal Studios exit in Los Angeles.

On January 10, 2022, Plaintiff David Choe (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this matter against Defendants Yongun Park (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence.

On May 24, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.

On that same day (May 24), Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery requests, including Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One).  (Daryanavard Decls., ¶ 4 & Exhs. 1.)  Plaintiff never served responses.  (Id., ¶ 6.)  

On November 20, 2023, Defendant filed the two motions before the Court seeking orders compelling Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One).  Defendant also seeks sanctions.

Plaintiff has not filed any 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).)

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).)

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 May 24, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One). (Daryanavard Decls., ¶ 4 & Exh. 1.)  Plaintiff never served responses.  (Id., ¶ 6.)  

Defendant need show nothing more.  The motions to compel are GRANTED.

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

On the motion to compel responses to the requests for production, the Court sets sanctions in the amount of $290.  This is the amount requested in the notice of motion and motion, and it is supported by adequate evidence in the declaration of counsel.

On the motion to compel responses to the form interrogatories, Defendant seeks sanctions of $750.  Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses, and the economies of scale associated with filing multiple discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions on each motion in the amount of $560, calculated based on 2 hours of attorney work, multiplied by a reasonable billing rate of $250 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee.  

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One). 

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

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

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant under the Civil Discovery Act in the total amount of $850 within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.