Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV13335, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV13335 Hearing Date: August 5, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Compel
Plaintiff to Respond to Supplemental Interrogatories.
Motion to Compel
Plaintiff to Respond to Supplemental Demand for Production.
Tentative
The motions are granted.
The requests for sanctions are denied.
Background
On April 21, 2022, Terrion Taylor, by and
through his Guardian Ad Litem, Terri Walker, Terri Walker, and Tiray Taylor (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Rampart Investment Corp., Reshma Family
Trust, Adam’s Fuel Inc., and Does 1 through 50 for (1) Negligence, (2) Premises
Liability, and (3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, arising out of
an incident in which Terrion Taylor was allegedly burnt by scalding water.
On June 16, 2023, Reshma Family Trust
(“Defendant”) filed an answer to the complaint.
Plaintiffs served Defendant with discovery on
January 16, 2024, including Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One), and Supplemental
Demand for Production (Set One). (Curry Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.) Defendant has not responded. (Id., ¶
5.)
On June 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed these two motions:
(1) motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Supplemental Interrogatories; and
(2) motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Supplemental Demand for Production. In each motion, Defendant also seeks
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).)
“In addition to the number of interrogatories permitted
by Sections 2030.030 and 2030.040, a party may propound a supplemental
interrogatory to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers
previously made by any party in response to interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2030.070, 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).)
“In addition to the demands for inspection, copying,
testing, or sampling permitted by this chapter, a party may propound a
supplemental demand to inspect, copy, test, or sample any later acquired or
discovered documents, tangible things, land or other property, or
electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the
party on whom the demand is made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.050, 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 January 16, 2024, Plaintiffs served
Defendant with discovery including Supplemental Interrogatories, and Supplemental
Demand for Production. (Curry Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.) Defendant has not responded. (Id., ¶
5.)
Plaintiffs need not show anything more. The motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to
the supplemental interrogatories and the supplemental demand 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, Defendant
has not opposed the motion. Accordingly,
no sanctions are authorized.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the Motions to Compel Defendant Reshma Family
Trust to Respond to Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One) and Supplemental
Demand for Production (Set One).
The Court ORDERS Defendant to serve code compliant, written,
verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental
Interrogatories within 10 days of notice.
The Court ORDERS Defendant to serve code compliant, written,
verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Demand for
Production within 10 days of notice.
The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ requests for monetary sanctions.