Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV05219, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05219    Hearing Date: September 8, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s Motions to Compel Plaintiff to respond to: (1) Request for Production of Documents (Set One); (2) Form Interrogatories (Set One); and (3) Special Interrogatories (Set One) are GRANTED. 

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are granted in part.

Background 

This case arises out of an automobile accident that allegedly occurred on February 29, 2020, on the I-10 Freeway near Vincent Avenue in Covina, California.  On February 10, 2022, Plaintiffs Claudia Lozano and Iker Martinez Serrano, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem Claudia Lozano (“Plaintiff”), filed suit against Defendants Yerania Hilario Castro (“Defendant”), Mario Hilario, Ebelia Castro, and Does 1 through 25 asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (the “FAC”) on February 18, 2022.  Defendant filed an answer on June 9, 2022.

On or about June 28, 2022, Defendant served certain discovery requests.  As is relevant to the matters before the Court on September 8 Defendants served Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One) on Plaintiff.  (Opfell Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff never served responses.  (Id., ¶ 6.)

On April 14, 2023, Defendant filed three motions: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One); (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One); and (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production (Set One).   Defendant requests monetary sanctions for each Motion.  

No opposition has been filed.

The Court notes there were additional motions to compel in this case heard on September 7, 2023.

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).)

“[T]he 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 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., § 2030.290, 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, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 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).)

“[T]he 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 response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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).)

Within 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

On or about June 28, 2022, Defendant served three sets of discovery requests on Plaintiff.  (Opfell Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff did not respond.  (Id., ¶ 6.)

Defendant need show nothing more.  Defendant’s motions to compel are GRANTED.

Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are also GRANTED.  In light of the relatively straightforward nature of each motion, and the economies of scale associated with preparing parallel discovery motions in the same case, Defendants are awarded sanctions for each motion in the amount of $272.50 (for 1.25 hours of work, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $170 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee).  (See id., ¶ 7.)  The total sanctions award is $817.50.  

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories; and Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide code compliant written and verified responses, without objection, within 30 days of notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s requests for sanctions.  Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $817.50 ($272.50 per motion multiplied by three motions) within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party to give notice.