Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV14690, Date: 2024-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV14690, Date: 2024-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14690 Hearing Date: April 10, 2024 Dept: 29

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Requests for Production (Set One)

Tentative

The motions are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff Estefania Bates (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action against Defendants Joshua A. Ghiam, DDS (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 30, asserting a single cause of action for dental malpractice. On November 2, 2023, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.

On November 9, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery, including Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One). (Ahdoot Decls., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not respond. (Id., ¶ 6.)

On February 13, 2024, Defendant filed these motions to compel. 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).)

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 2030.030 provides that the court may impose sanctions “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.” 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

Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One) on November 9, 2023. (Ahdoot Decls., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not respond. (Id., ¶ 6.)

Defendant need show nothing more. His motions to compel are GRANTED.

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Defendant seeks sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (c), and 2031.300, subdivision (c). These statute authorize an award of sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” a motion to compel initial responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c); § 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, Plaintiff did not file any opposition, and so there is no authority under these statutes to award sanctions against Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 does not provide an independent basis to award sanctions; to the contrary, the statute expressly states that a sanctions award must be “authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) The Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Justice Moor, recently made this very point in City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504 (“sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery … without regard to any other provision of the Discovery Act”). The Court is aware that the California Supreme Court has granted review of the City of Los Angeles case, but the Court notes that the order granting review, filed on January 25, 2023, states that pending review, the appellate opinion “may be cited,” including “for its persuasive value.” The Court finds the reasoning of Justice Moor to be persuasive.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide verified, code-compliant, written responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One) within 21 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.