Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV15766, Date: 2023-09-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV15766, Date: 2023-09-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15766 Hearing Date: October 20, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The Court will hear from counsel.

Background

Petitioner Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company (“Allstate”) filed this petition on May 12, 2022, in connection with an uninsured motorist arbitration proceeding. Claimant Alexandra Falconeri (“Falconeri”) is named as the respondent.

On May 18, 2022, Allstate filed a “notice of lodging [of] proof of service.” In the notice, Allstate represents that the petition was served by mail on Fred Hanassab, Esq. (presumably Falconeri’s attorney).

Falconeri has not filed a responsive pleading or otherwise appeared in this action.

On February 24, 2022, before the petition in this action was filed, Allstate served Falconeri, in the arbitration, with Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for Production (Set Two). (Calendo Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Exh. A.) Counsel communicated regarding the requests, and even worked with a mediator to resolve the disputes, but Falconeri never responded to the discovery. (Id., ¶¶ 6-13 & Exhs. B, D-F.)

On August 1, 2023, Allstate filed the two motions before the Court, seeking an order compelling Falconeri to respond to the two discovery requests. Allstate also seeks sanctions.

The hearing was initially set for September 5. The Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing to October 20.

Falconeri has not filed any response to the motions.

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, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 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 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., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed ….” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Discussion

If these discovery requests had been propounded in a litigation matter pending before this Court, the motions would likely be granted, and the Court would likely award sanctions. According to the evidence before the Court, discovery requests were properly served, and no responses have been provided.

Here, however, the Court has two questions for the moving party:

First, how can the Court make any order affecting the rights of Falconeri, who has not appeared in this action? Proof of service of the petition (and the motion) apparently was made by service on an attorney, the service was by mail, which is ordinarily not sufficient.

Second, why is this in court, rather than before an arbitrator. As the Court understands it, the parties have an arbitration proceeding pending, and ordinarily the arbitrator, rather than a court, controls the process for discovery in an arbitration.