Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV01731, Date: 2024-05-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV01731 Hearing Date: May 6, 2024 Dept: 29
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant
Guerra to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Herrera to Special
Interrogatories (Set One)
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Initial Response from Defendant Herrera to
Supplementary Interrogatory (Set One)
Tentative
The Court has a question for counsel: were the discovery
responses served on or about April 18 verified?
If so:
The motions to compel are denied as moot.
The requests for sanctions are denied.
Background
On January 14, 2022, Plaintiffs Rafael Marron Perez, Nancy
Marlen Lopez, and Elisa Marron Perez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the
complaint in this action against Defendants Eric Scott Herrera (“Herrera”),
Cynthia Guerra (“Guerra”), and Does 1 through 30, asserting causes of action
for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident
on January 27, 2020, at or near the intersection of Rinaldi and Porter Ranch
Drive in Porter Ranch. Herrera and
Guerra filed their answer on March 8, 2022.
As is relevant to the matters set for hearing on May 6, 2024,
Plaintiffs served both Guerra and Herrera with Special Interrogatories (Set
One) on May 9, 2023, including Requests for Admission (Set One), and Form
Interrogatories (Set Two). (Aziz Decls.,
¶ 2 & Exhs. 1.) Neither served a
timely response. (Id., ¶¶
3-4.) Months later, on January 10, 2024,
Guerra and Herrera served responses, including objections. (Id., ¶ 4 & Exhs. 2.) Plaintiffs contend that the responses are not
code compliant; they sent meet and confer correspondence, but the parties were
unable to resolve their dispute. (Id.,
¶¶ 5-9 & Exhs. 3-5.) The Court
conducted an Informal Discovery Conference on April 10, 2024, but the dispute
was not resolved.
In addition, Plaintiffs served Herrera with Supplementary
Interrogatory (Set One) on January 11, 2024.
(Aziz Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. 1.) As
of the time of the filing of this motion, Herrera had not responded at
all. (Id., ¶ 7.)
On March 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed these motions seeking
further responses to the special interrogatories from Guerra, further responses
to the special interrogatories from Herrera, and initial responses to the
supplemental interrogatory from Herrera.
Defendants filed oppositions on April 22, and Plaintiffs filed their
replies on April 29.
Shortly before Herrera and Guerra filed their oppositions, they
served amended responses to the special interrogatories, and Herrera served initial
responses to the supplemental interrogatory.
(Yegoyan Decls., ¶ 10 & Exh. A.)
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).)
“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding
party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding
party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular
interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to
produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required
specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an
interrogatory is without merit or too general.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)
Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given
“within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental
verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the
propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Id.,
subd. (c).)
A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer
declaration and a separate statement or, in the discretion of the Court, a
“concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Id.,
subd. (b)(1) & (b)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)
“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 a
motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)
In Chapter 7 of the
Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a)
provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering
that any person “engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any
attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including
attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” A “misuse of
the discovery process” includes (among other things) failing to respond or to
submit to an authorized method of discovery; making, without substantial
justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive
response to a discovery request; disobeying a court order to provide discovery;
and making or opposing, unsuccessfully, a motion to compel without substantial
justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d)-(h).)
Discussion
The Court has reviewed the evidence in the record and the
arguments presented by both sides.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs satisfied the statutory
meet-and-confer requirement.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motions are timely filed.
The Court finds that Defendants Herrea and Guerra did not
serve timely responses to the Special Interrogatories (Set One). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd.
(a).) Defendants therefore waived “any
objection to the requests.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) Defendants
have not filed a motion for relief from that waiver. (See ibid.) Nor have they shown that the failure to serve
a timely response “was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable
neglect.” (Id., subd. (a)(2).)
The amended responses served by Guerra on April 18 contain no
objections and are factual in nature. Accordingly,
the motion to compel further responses from Guerra to Special Interrogatories
(Set One) is denied.
The amended responses served by Herrera on April 18 contain no
objections and are factual in nature. Accordingly,
the motion to compel further responses from Herrera to Special Interrogatories
(Set One) is denied.
The Court finds that Defendant Herrea did not serve timely
responses to the Supplemental Interrogatory (Set One). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd.
(a).) He therefore waived “any objection
to the requests.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2033.280, subd. (a).) Herrea has not
filed a motion for relief from that waiver.
(See ibid.) Nor has he shown
that the failure to serve a timely response “was the result of mistake,
inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Id.,
subd. (a)(2).)
Herrera has now served initial responses to the Supplemental
Interrogatory. Accordingly, the motion
to compel him to serve initial responses is denied as moot. The Court notes, however, that the responses
contain objections. This is improper. Herrera may face a motion to compel, and
potentially sanctions, if he does not amend and provide substantive responses, without
objections.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ three motions are all denied as
moot. Plaintiffs have now received
initial responses to the Supplemental Interrogatory (Set One) from Herrera and substantive
responses, without objections, from both Defendants to Special Interrogatories
(Set One).
The requests for sanctions are denied.
Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (c) and
2030.300, subdivision (d), authorize sanctions against a party or attorney “who unsuccessfully makes or
opposes a motion to compel.” Here, the
motions are denied as moot, and so Defendants have not unsuccessfully opposed any
motion.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiffs’ motion to compel
Defendant Guerra to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set
One).
The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiffs’ motion to compel
Defendant Herrera to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set
One).
The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiffs’ motion to compel
Defendant Herrera to provide initial responses to Supplemental Interrogatory (Set
One).
The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions.
The Court ORDERS moving parties to give notice.