Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV01833, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01833    Hearing Date: March 1, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two)

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production (Set Two)

Defendant’s Motion to Deem Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One)

Tentative

The motions are granted.

Background

On January 18, 2022, Plaintiff Stephanie Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against Defendants Michael A. Hubbard, Jaylor Restoration Inc., and Does 1 to 75, for Motor Vehicle Negligence and General Negligence arising out of an automobile accident on February 10, 2020. 

On September 12, 2022, Defendants Michael A. Hubbard and Jaylor Restoration Inc. filed their answer.  On October 18, 2022, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed without prejudice the claims in the complaint against Jaylor Restoration Inc.

On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel was relieved.  Plaintiff is now representing herself in pro per.

On October 9, 2023, Defendant Michael A. Hubbard (“Defendant”) served Plaintiff by mail with discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set Two), Request for Production of Documents (Set Two), and Request for Admissions (Set Two). (Petrosyan Decls., ¶ 6 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff did not respond.  (Id., ¶ 8.)

On November 15, 2023, Defendant filed the three motions that are now before the Court: to to compel responses to the form interrogatories; to compel responses to the requests for production; and to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission.  The motions were served by both email and regular mail. 

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).)

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. (Id., § 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.”  (Id., § 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 matters contained 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).)

“[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 October 9, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set Two), Request for Production of Documents (Set Two), and Request for Admissions (Set Two). (Petrosyan Decls., ¶ 6 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff did not respond. (Id., ¶ 8.)

Defendant need show nothing more.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) and Request for Production (Set Two).

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Deem Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Request for Admissions (Set One).

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide verified, code compliant, written responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set Two) within 14 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide verified, code compliant, written responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Requests for Production (Set Two) within 14 days of notice.

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

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.