Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV15712, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15712    Hearing Date: January 8, 2025    Dept: 29

Esker v. McGowan
22STCV15712
Motion to Compel
Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set Two)
Motion to Compel
Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set Two)
Motion for Order Deeming Plaintiff to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set Two)

Tentative

The motions are denied without prejudice.

Background

On May 11, 2022, Plaintiff Francesca Esker (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Brian Ohara McGowan, David Kreamer, Advanced Publishing Technology, and Does 1 through 50, asserting a cause of action for general negligence arising out of an alleged faulty repair of a motorized bicycle.

 

On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name David Kraii as Doe 1.

 

On October 24, 2022, Defendants Advanced Publishing Technology, Inc. and David Kraai (collectively “Defendants”) filed an answer.

 

On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel was relieved as attorney of record.

 

On December 13, 2024, Defendants filed these three discovery motions: (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set Two); (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set Two); and (3) Motion for Order Deeming Plaintiff to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set Two).

 

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).)

A party must respond to requests for admission within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for admission are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party “may move for an order that … the truth of [the] matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for such a motion, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2033.280; 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., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

The court “shall” make the order that the truth of the matters specified in the request be deemed admitted unless the court “finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); see St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778-780.)

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion [to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission].”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, 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 October 31, 2024, Defendants served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories (Set Two), Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two), and Requests for Admission (Set Two). (Kuppermann Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A..)  Plaintiff did not respond.  (Id., ¶ 6.)

Defendants served Plaintiff with both the written discovery requests and these three motions by electronic transmission. Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant.  As a self-represented litigant, Plaintiff must expressly consent to electronic service; there is no express consent from Plaintiff to be served electronically filed with the court. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c).)

Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice, for inadequate service, the three discovery motions before the Court.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendants’ motions to compel written discovery and motion for a deemed-admitted order.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.