Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV07330, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07330    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set 1) served on Defendant Isaias Ortega filed by Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club.

Tentative

The motion is GRANTED.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED in part.

Background

On March 1 2022, Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Adam Derek Espinoza, Isaias Ortega, and Does 1 through 10 for subrogation recovery.  Defendant Isaias Ortega (“Defendant”) filed his answer on June 24, 2022.

On February 16, 2023, Plaintiff served by mail Form Interrogatories (Set One) on Defendant Isaias Ortega (“Defendant”). Plaintiff has yet to receive responses.

On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set 1) served on Defendant.  

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).)

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).)  

"Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).)

Discussion

On February 16, 2023, served by mail Form Interrogatories (Set One) on Defendant. (Tapper Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff has yet to receive responses. (Id., ¶ 3.)

No opposition has been filed.

Plaintiff has met the requirements for the requested relief.  Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set 1) served on Defendant Isaias Ortega.

Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses, and the economies of scale associated with filing multiple discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions in the amount of $337.50 calculated based on 1.5 hours of attorney work, multiplied by attorney’s hourly billing rate of $225.00.  (Id., ¶ 4.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set 1) served on Defendant Isaias Ortega.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Isaias Ortega to serve code compliant, verified, written responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set 1), without objection, within 30 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS  Defendant Isaias Ortega to pay sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Plaintiff in the amount of $337.50 within 30 days of notice of the ruling.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.