Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV10982, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV10982 Hearing Date: August 22, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
The Motions to Compel Plaintiff Antonio
Iezza III to respond to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request
for Production of Documents are GRANTED.
Defendant’s requests for sanctions are
GRANTED.
Background
This is an action arising from a motor
vehicle accident.
On April 1, 2022, Plaintiffs Antonio Iezza
Jr. and Antonio Iezza III initiated this action against Defendants Bill Greg
Higgins, Carson Trailer, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, alleging the following causes
of action: (1) negligence; (2) vicarious liability; (3) strict products
liability; (4) negligence – products liability; and (5) negligence – failure to
warn.
On July 19, 2023, Defendant Carson Trailer
Inc. (hereinafter, “Defendant”) filed three separate motions seeking to compel Plaintiff
Antonio Iezza III (“Plaintiff”) to provide initial responses to Defendant’s Form
Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for
Production of Documents, Set One. For each motion, Defendant also request monetary
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).)
“[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, 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).)
“[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).)
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 May 11, 2023,
Defendant served form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for
production on Plaintiff. (Lal
Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff
did not respond. (Id., ¶¶ 3-4.)
Defendant need show nothing more. Its motions to compel are GRANTED.
Defendant’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED. On each motion,
Defendant is awarded sanctions as against Plaintiff and counsel of record in
the amount of $324 (for 1.5 hours of work, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate
of $175 per hour, plus the $61.50 filing fee). (See id., ¶ 5.)
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motions to
Compel Plaintiff to provide initial responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One;
Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set
One. Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve verified, code-complaint responses to these
discovery requests within 30 days of notice of this order.
The Court
GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions. Plaintiff and counsel of record are
ordered, jointly and severally, to pay Defendant sanctions in the amount of $324
per motion ($972 in total) within 30 days of notice of this order.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.