Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV08385, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08385    Hearing Date: July 31, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant Reina Nestor’s Form Interrogatories
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant Jose Arthur Nestor’s Form Interrogatories
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant Jose Arthur Nestor’s Special Interrogatories

Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant Jose Arthur Nestor’s Request for Production of Documents

Tentative

The motions to compel are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

On March 8, 2022, Jorge Alberto Santos (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Jose Arthur Nestor (“Jose”) and Reina Nestor (“Reina”) (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 100 for negligence arising out of an automobile accident occurring on March 11 , 2020.

Defendants filed an answer on October 11, 2023.

On June 20, 2024, Defendants filed six motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production. Four of the motions are set for hearing on July 31 and the remaining two are set for hearing on August 1.

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 October 11, 2023, Defendant Jose served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One), and Defendant Reina served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One).  (Tsymbaloff Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff has not responded to these discovery requests.  (Id., ¶¶ 10-11.)

Defendants need not show anything more.  The motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to the form interrogatories, the special interrogatories, and the requests for production are GRANTED. 

The requests for sanctions in connection with the motions to compel responses to the interrogatories and requests for production are DENIED. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” but does not independently authorize sanctions for such conduct.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides for the imposition of sanctions against any party or attorney who engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title [the Civil Discovery Act].”  This section, itself, does not independently authorize sanctions.

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 motion.  Accordingly, sanctions are not authorized under the Civil Discovery Act.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the Motions to Compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant Jose Arthur Nestor’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 14 days of notice of this order.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant Reina Nestor’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 14 days of notice of this order.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant Jose Arthur Nestor’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 14 days of notice of this order.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant Jose Arthur Nestor’s Requests for Production (Set One) within 14 days of notice of this order.

The Court DENIES Defendants’ requests for monetary sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.