Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV05804, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV05804 Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 Dept: 29
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form
Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set
One)
Tentative
The motions are granted.
Background
On February
15, 2022, Alberto Juan Vargas (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Quinn
Group, Inc., Quinn Company, Spencer Bradley Quinn (collectively “Defendants”)
and Does 1 through 50 for a negligence cause of action arising from an
automobile accident occurring on February 28, 2020. Defendants filed their answer on August 18,
2023.
Also on August
18, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiff with discovery, including Form
Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production (Set One). (Kwong Decls.,
¶ 4.)
On February 2, 2024, Defendants filed these motions to
compel and for sanctions. 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).)
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
August 18, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set
One) and Request for Production (Set One). (Kwong Decls., ¶ 4.) Defendants have
yet to receive responses. (Id., ¶ 5.)
Defendants
need show nothing more. The Court GRANTS
Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiff’s
responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production (Set
One).
The requests for sanctions are
DENIED. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision
(a), an award of sanctions must be “authorized by the chapter governing any
particular discovery method or any other provision of this
title.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd.
(a).) For interrogatories and requests for production, the statutes
authorize sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully
makes or opposes” the motion to compel initial responses. (Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).)
The Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Justice
Moor, made this very point in City of Los Angeles v.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504 (“sections
2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize the trial court to impose
monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery … without regard to any other
provision of the Discovery Act”). The Court is aware that the
California Supreme Court has granted review of that case. The order
granting review, filed on January 25, 2023, states that pending review, the
appellate opinion “may be cited,” including “for its persuasive value.” The
Court finds the reasoning of Justice Moor to be persuasive.
Here, no opposition has been
filed. Accordingly, there is no statutory basis for an award of
sanctions.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the motions to compel.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide verified,
code-compliant, written responses, without objections, to Defendants’ Form
Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One),
within 21 days of notice.
The Court DENIES Defendants’ request for
sanctions.
Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.