Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV04265, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04265    Hearing Date: March 6, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Defendant Princella Lewis’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) filed by Plaintiff Nazlie Mojiri.

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

This case arises out of an alleged confrontation at and outside a restaurant on August 20, 2021.  On February 3, 2022, Plaintiff Nazlie Mojiri (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action asserting claims for assault, battery, negligence, and premises liability.  Plaintiff named as defendants Ariyoshi, R.V.M. LLC, Jane Doe, and Does 1 through 50.

On June 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint identifying Jane Doe as Princella Lewis. Princella Lewis (“Defendant”), representing herself in pro per, filed her answer on September 6, 2023.  Defendant filed an amended answer on December 7, 2023.

On October 17, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set. One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One). (Doddy Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. B.)  The discovery was served on Defendant by mail.  (Id., Exh. B.)  Defendant did not respond.  (Id., ¶¶ 3-4.)

On February 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One).  Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions.  According to the proof of service filed with the Court, Defendant was served with motion by email.

No opposition has been filed.

On March 4, 2024, Defendant filed a substitution of counsel.  She is now represented by counsel.

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).)

Discussion

Plaintiff served Defendant with Form Interrogatories (Set. One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) on October 17, 2023. (Doddy Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. B.)  Defendant did not respond.  (Id., ¶¶ 3-4.)

Plaintiff filed this motion on February 8, 2024.

Plaintiff is representing herself in pro per, by email only. Although email service may be mandatory for represented parties, litigants who are in pro per are not subject to mandatory email service, and Plaintiff has presented no evidence that Defendant has consented to email service. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B).)

Accordingly, the motion to compel was not properly served.  The motion is denied without prejudice.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’ motion to compel Defendant to respond to with Form Interrogatories (Set. One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.