Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV01191, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01191    Hearing Date: May 24, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)
Motion for an Order Deeming Plaintiff to Have Admitted as True the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One)

Tentative

The motions are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

On January 11, 2022, Elie Alyeshmerhi (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Carlos Alberto Bernabe, Uber Technologies, Raiser LLC, Raiser-CA LLC, and Does 1 through 50 for negligence arising from an automobile accident occurring on January 14, 2020.

On December 11, 2023, Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Raiser LLC, and Raiser-CA, LLC filed an answer.

On January 30, 2024, Uber served Plaintiff with discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One).  (Loayza Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff did not respond.  (Id., ¶¶ 5-6.)

On March 26, 2024, Uber filed these four motions: three motions to compel responses and one motion for a deemed-admitted order.  Uber also seeks sanctions.

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).)

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).) Requests for admission may be propounded on a party without leave of court 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by that party, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.020(b).)

A party must respond to requests for admission within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for admission are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party “may move for an order that … the truth of [the] matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for such a motion, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2033.280; 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., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

The court “shall” make the order that the truth of the matters specified in the request be deemed admitted unless the court “finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); see St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778-780.)

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion [to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission].”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, 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

Uber served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One) on January 30, 2024.  (Loayza Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff did not serve responses to these discovery requests.  (Id., ¶¶ 5-6.)

Uber need not show anything more.

The motions to compel are granted.  The motion for a deemed admitted order is GRANTED.

Uber’s requests for sanctions.  No evidence has been presented in support of the requests.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motions to compel and GRANTS the motion for a deemed-admitted order.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve verified, written, code compliant responses, without objections, to Uber’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve verified, written, code compliant responses, without objections, to Uber’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve verified, written, code compliant responses, without objections, to Uber’s Requests for Production (Set One) within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Uber’s Requests for Admissions (Set One).

The Court DENIES Uber’s requests for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.