Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV07114, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV07114, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07114 Hearing Date: December 5, 2023 Dept: 29

Tentative

The motions to compel are GRANTED.

The requests for sanctions are GRANTED.

Background

Rafael Olivas ("Plaintiff") filed suit against Gerald Guba and Joan Guba (“Defendants”) and DOES 1 through 20, alleging that Defendants collided with her vehicle on February 29, 2020.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on February 28, 2022, asserting causes of action for Motor Vehicle Negligence and General Negligence.

On June 29, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One). Plaintiff did not respond.

Defendants filed the Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) responses of Plaintiff on September 28, 2023, as well as for sanctions of $461.65 for each motion, $923.30 total.

Plaintiff did not file any opposition.

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).)

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 June 29, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One). (Declaration of Gabriella Baharvar, ¶ 3.) Plaintiff did not respond. (Id. ¶ 5.)

Defendants need show nothing more. Their motions to compel Plaintiff are GRANTED.

Defendants’ requests for sanctions are GRANTED. The Court finds that the amount of time, billing rate, and costs set forth in requests for sanctions are reasonable. The Court sets sanctions on each motion in the amount of $461.65, calculated based on 2 hours of attorney work, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $200 per hour, plus a $61.65 filing fee. (See Declaration of Gabriella Baharvar, ¶ 7.)

Conclusion

Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) are GRANTED.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve verified, code-compliant written responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 14 days of notice of this order.

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff and counsel of record Kelly Lawrence Casado, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant under the Civil Discovery Act in the total amount of $923.30 ($461.65 for each of two motions) within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.