Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV01754, Date: 2025-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01754    Hearing Date: May 2, 2025    Dept: 29

Sfadia v. Carrillo
22STCV01754
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Supplemental Interrogatory
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Supplemental Request for Production of Documents

Tentative

The motions are granted.

The requests for sanctions are dnied.

Background

On January 14, 2022, Shlomi Sfadia (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Jesus Carrillo, Northwest Excavating Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 20 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident on January 16, 2020, on the westbound 101 Freeway near White Oak Avenue in Encino.

On July 10, 2023, Defendants filed an answer.

On April 1, 2025, Defendant Northwest Excavating Inc. (“Northwest”) filed these two discovery motions: (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Supplemental Interrogatory; and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Supplemental Request for Production of Documents.  In each motion, Northwest seeks sanctions.

No opposition has been filed.

Trial is set for August 11, 2025.

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).)

Discussion

On November 18, 2024, Northwest served Plaintiff with Supplemental Interrogatory and Supplemental Request for Production of Documents. (Kwong Decls. ¶ 4 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff has not responded. (Id., ¶ 8.)

Northwest need show nothing more.

The Court GRANTS Northwest’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Supplemental Interrogatory and Supplemental Request for Production of Documents.  

As for sanctions, In the chapters of the Civil Discovery Act governing interrogatories and requests for production, the Legislature has authorized sanctions in the context of a motion to compel initial responses “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” the motion to compel.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) & 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, Plaintiff has not opposed the motions.  Accordingly, the requests for sanctions are denied.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motions to compel filed by Defendant Northwest Excavating Inc.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Shlomi Sfadia to serve written, verified, code -compliant responses, without objection, to Northwest’s Supplemental Interrogatory within 10 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Shlomi Sfadia to serve written, verified, code -compliant responses, without objection, to Northwest’s Supplemental Request for Production of Documents within 10 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Northwest Excavating Inc.’s requests for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.