Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV04658, Date: 2025-06-13 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 22STCV04658    Hearing Date: June 13, 2025    Dept: 29

Nava v. General Mills, Inc.
22STCV04658
Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lorenzo Nava to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lorenzo Nava to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lorenzo Nava to Respond to Request for Production (Set One)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lorenzo Nava to Appear for Deposition and Produce Documents

Tentative

The motions are granted.

The requests for sanctions are granted in part and denied in part.

Background

On February 7, 2022, Lorenzo Nava (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint against General Mills, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 20, asserting causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) strict product liability – manufacturing defect, (3) strict product liability – design defect, (4) strict product liability – failure to warn, (5) strict product liability – breach of express and implied warranty, and (6) res ipsa loquitur, all arising out of an incident on February 18, 2020, in which, Plaintiff alleges, he sustained a broken tooth and temporomandibular jaw syndrome when eating Honey Nut Cheerios.

On June 10, 2024, Defendant filed an answer.

On May 15, 2025, Defendant filed these four discovery motions: (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One); (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One); (3) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production (Set One); and (4) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Appear for Deposition and Produce Documents.

No opposition has been filed. 

Trial is set for July 16, 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).)

“Any party may obtain discovery … by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)  Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.210 through 2025.280 provide the requirements for (among other things) what must be included in a deposition notice, when and where depositions may be taken, and how and when the notice must be served. 

“The service of a deposition notice … is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

Section 2025.410 requires any party to serve a written objection at least three days before the deposition if the party contends that a deposition notice does not comply with the provisions of sections 2025.210 through 2025.280.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).)

Section 2025.450 provides:

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for¿inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)  The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, “or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents … by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”  (Id., subd. (b)(2).)  The motion must also “set forth specific facts showing cause” for the production of documents.  (Id., subd. (b)(1).) 

When a motion to compel is granted, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court 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., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) 

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., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Discussion

Motions to Compel Responses to Written Discovery

On April 1, 2025, Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production (Set One). (Muro Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff has not responded. (Id., ¶ 7.)

Defendant need not show anything more.  The motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to the Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and the Request for Production (Set One) are granted. 

The requests for sanctions in connection with the motions to compel responses to written discovery are denied.  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, however, Plaintiff has not opposed the motions.  Accordingly, no sanctions are ordered.

Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff

Defendant seeks an order for Plaintiff to appear for deposition and produce documents and tangible things at deposition.

On April 18, 2025, Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for April 30, 2025. (Muro Decl., ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff did not object and did not appear.  (Id., ¶¶ 5, 8; see also Exh. B.) On April 30, 2025, 16 minutes after the scheduled deposition time, Plaintiff’s counsel reached out by email to defense counsel to reschedule the depo; defense counsel responded with availability, but Plaintiff’s counsel has yet to reply. (Id., ¶¶ 9, 11.)

The Court finds Plaintiff was properly served with notice of the deposition and failed to appear.

Therefore, the motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition and produce the requested documents without objection is granted.

The request for sanctions is granted in part.  In the chapter of the Civil Discovery Act governing depositions, the Legislature has authorized sanctions when a motion to compel is granted “unless the court 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., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)  The motion is granted, Plaintiff has not acted with substantial justification, and there are no other circumstances present that would make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

The Court sets sanctions in the amount of $1,661, calculated based on two hours of attorney time multiplied by a reasonable billing rate of $375 per hour for work of this nature, plus $851 in court reporter fees, plus a $60 filing fee.  (See Muro Decl., ¶¶ 12-14.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the Motions to Compel Plaintiff Lorenzo Nava to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One) filed by Defendant General Mills, Inc.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Lorenzo Nava to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of notice of this order.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Lorenzo Nava to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of notice of this order.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Lorenzo Nava to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents and Things (Set One) within 10 days of notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lorenzo Nava to Appear for Deposition and Respond to the Request for Documents filed by Defendant General Mills, Inc.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Lorenzo Nava to appear for deposition on June __, 2025, at 1:00 p.m., at the offices of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, 555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071 and to produce at the deposition all documents requested in the deposition notice.

The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Lorenzo Nava to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $1,661 to Defendant (through counsel) within 30 days of notice.

All other requests for sanctions are denied.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.