Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV22334, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV22334 Hearing Date: February 24, 2025 Dept: 29
Islas v. County of Los Angeles
22STCV22334
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set
One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special
Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff, as Successor in
Interest, to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests
for Production (Set One)
Tentative
The motions are denied without prejudice.
Background
On July 11, 2022, Margarito Esparza Islas,
both individually and as successor in interest to the Estate of Alejandro
Esparza (“Plaintiff”) and Maria Lozano Medina, both individually and as
successor in interest to the Estate of Alejandro Esparza, filed a complaint
against County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 100 for negligence,
negligence supervision, and wrongful death arising out of the death of
Alejandro Esparza on May 21, 2021, while he was an inmate at Twin Towers
Correctional Facility.
On February 21, 2024, Defendant filed an
answer.
On March 14, 2024, the Court granted the
motion of counsel for both plaintiffs to be relieved.
On December 30, 2024, Maria Lozano Medina
dismissed her claims against Defendant.
On January 27, 2025, Defendant filed these
motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to written discovery. 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).)
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
For a hearing on February 24, 2025, the last day to file
and serve the motion by personal service was January 29, 2025. The
last day for mail service was January 24, 2025. Defendant, however, served
the motion by mail late, on January 27, 2025. For this reason, the
motion is denied without prejudice.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s
four motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to written discovery requests.
Moving party is ORDERED to give
notice.