Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV19490, Date: 2024-12-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV19490, Date: 2024-12-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19490 Hearing Date: December 26, 2024 Dept: 29

Isagulian v. Kurihara
22STCV19490
Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set Two)
Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set Two)
Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Requests for Production (Set Two)
Motion for Order Deeming Defendant to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Asserted in Request for Admissions (Set One).

Tentative

The motions are denied as untimely.

Background

On June 15, 2022, Arlene Isagulian (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Steven Kurihara, Jessica Kurihara (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident on September 20, 2021.

On July 11, 2022, Defendants filed an answer.

Trial in this matter was initially set for December 13, 2023.

In October 2023, the Court, on the stipulation of the parties, continued the trial date to June 20, 2024. All discovery deadlines were reset based on the new trial date.

In May 2024, the Court, on the stipulation of the parties, continued the trial date to September 20, 2024. All discovery deadlines were reset based on the new trial date.

At the Final Status Conference on September 6, 2024, the Court, on the oral stipulation of the parties, continued the trial date to January 23, 2025. No order was made to extend or reset discovery deadlines.

On December 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed these four discovery motions: to compel Jessica Kurihara (“Defendant”) to respond to Form Interrogatories, to compel Defendant to respond to Special Interrogatories, to compel Defendant to respond to Requests for Production, and for an order deeming Defendant to have admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission. In each motion, Plaintiff also seeks sanctions.

Defendant filed oppositions on December 12, and Plaintiff filed replies on December 18.

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 July 26, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production, and Request for Admissions. (Sarukhanyan Decls., ¶ 3.)

The parties disagree regarding whether Defendant served responses. Plaintiff contends that she did not. (Id., ¶ 4; Sarukhanyan Reply Decls. ¶ 3 & Exh. A.) Defendant contends that she did serve responses on August 27. (Todd Decls., ¶¶ 5, 7 & Exh. B.)

In any event, however, Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. Trial was initially set for December 13, 2023. The Court has continued the trial date three times. On the first two occasions, the Court also reset all discovery deadlines based on the new trial date: in the second order for a continuance, the Court set the trial for September 20, 2024. The last day for fact discovery to be completed was 30 days prior to that trial date, and the last day for discovery motions to be heard was 15 days prior to that trial date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, sub. (a).)

The Court did subsequently continue the trial to January 23, 2025, but the Court did not reset the discovery deadlines. Absent a court order to the contrary, “a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings. (Id., subd. (b).)

Accordingly, the last day for discovery motions to be heard in this matter was September 5, 2024. Plaintiff’s four discovery motions are untimely and are denied on that basis.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES as untimely Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Defendant Jessica Kurihara to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set Two), Special Interrogatories (Set Two), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two).

The Court also DENIES as untimely Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Deeming Defendant to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions (Set One).

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.