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
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.