Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV15599, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15599    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Nancy Michelle Simon Perez’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) filed by Defendant Jason Fladlien.

Tentative

The motion to compel is granted.

The request for sanctions is denied.

Background

These cases all arise out of a motor vehicle accident on January 1, 2021, near the intersection of Sierra Highway and Golden Valley Road in Santa Clarita.

In Case No. 22STCV15599, on May 10, 2022, Plaintiff Gary Trent Stephens filed his complaint against Jason Fladien and Alexis Woodford. On October 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint adding Molly Fladlien as Doe 1.

In Case No. 22CHCV01468, on December 21, 2022, Nathan Pratt, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Andrea Rocha, filed a complaint against Alexi Jean Woodford, Jason Fladlien, Gary Trent Jong Sou Stephens, and Nancy Michelle Simon Perez.

In Case No. 22CHCV01484, on December 23, 2022, Nancy Michelle Simon Perez filed a complaint against Alexis Jean Woodford and Jason Fladlein.

In Case No. 23CHCV02027, on July 11, 2023, Elsa Martinez filed her complaint against Alexis J. Woodford and Jason Fladlien.

On September 28, 2023, the cases were consolidated with 22STCV15599 as the lead case.

On February 9, 2024, Defendant Jason Fladlien (“Defendant”) filed his motion to compel the Responses of Plaintiff Nancy Michelle Simon Perez (“Plaintiff”) to Request for Production of Documents (Set One). No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

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).)

Discussion

On June 6, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with Request for Production (Set One). (Wilcoxson Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. A.) Plaintiff has failed to provide any response. (Id., ¶ 9.)

Defendant need show nothing more.

The motion to compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production (Set One) is GRANTED.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c), authorizes sanctions only when a party or attorney unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel.  Here, Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.  Defendant also cites Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, which defines a misuse of the discovery process, and section 2023.030, which does not provide an independent basis to award sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 [stating that sanctions award must be “authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title”].)  The Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Justice Moor, 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.  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

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Requests for Production (Set One) is GRANTED. 

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

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.