Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV17628, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17628    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)

Tentative

The motions are granted.

Background

On May 31, 2022, Joseph Safdeye (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Hovanes John Haitaian and Hakop Haitaian (collectively “Defendants”) and Does 1 through 10 for motor vehicle negligence arising from an automobile accident occurring on August 25, 2021.  Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on December 15, 2022.

On January 12, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiff with discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).  (Kothary Decls., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.)  Plaintiff has not responded.  (Id., ¶ 5.)

On April 24, 2023, Defendants filed the three motions to compel that are now before the Court.  Plaintiff did not file an opposition, but his counsel filed a declaration on March 26, 2024. No reply 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).) Requests for admission may be propounded on a party without leave of court 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by that party, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.020(b).)

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 January 12, 2023, Defendants served written discovery on Plaintiff. (Kothary Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff has not responded. (Id., ¶ 5.)

Defendants need not show anything more.  The three motions to compel are GRANTED.

The requests for sanctions are DENIED for two reasons.

First, Defendant’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.  The statutes governing motions to compel initial responses to interrogatories and requests for production authorize an award of sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” the motion to compel.  (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 the Civil Discovery Act 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.

Second, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration stating that stating responses have been prepared and verified but have not been served because Plaintiff is battling cancer. (Sanders Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)  Under these circumstances, the Court finds that an award of sanctions would be unjust.

To be clear, however, Plaintiff must respond to the discovery requests.  That is Plaintiff’s obligation under the Civil Discovery Act, and it is now his obligation under the order of this Court.  Failure to do so may result in serious, and escalating, sanctions.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide written, verified, code-compliant responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 21 days of notice.

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

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

The Court DENIES the requests for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.