Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV11724, Date: 2024-02-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11724    Hearing Date: February 6, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Response to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Supplemental Interrogatories filed by Defendant Tower Urology, Inc.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On April 6, 2022, Plaintiff Violet Kashany (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against Defendants Tower Urology, Inc., Dr. David Josephson, and Does 1 through 20, for the causes of action of (1) Negligence and (2) Premises Liability.

On September 20, 2023, Defendant Tower Urology, Inc. (“Defendant”) served Plaintiff with Supplemental Interrogatories. (Cruz Decl., ¶ 2.) On September 29, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories (Set Two). (Id., ¶ 3.)  No responses have been received.

On January 5, 2024, Defendant filed the Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Supplemental Interrogatories.

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 September 20, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with Supplemental Interrogatories. (Cruz Decl., ¶ 2.) On September 29, 2023, Defendant served Special Interrogatories (Set Two). (Id., ¶ 3.) No responses have been received from Plaintiff. (Id., ¶ 8.)

Defendant need not show anything more.  The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Supplemental Interrogatories.

The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions of $85.00 for costs of bringing the motion. (Id., ¶ 9.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Supplemental Responses to Special Interrogatories.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide written, verified, code-complaint responses, without objection to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Supplemental Interrogatories within 21 days of the notice.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $85.00 to Defendant within 21 days of notice.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.