Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV22701, Date: 2024-12-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22701    Hearing Date: December 26, 2024    Dept: 29

Mkhchyan v. Jerome’s Furniture Warehouse
22STCV22701
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Rivas Perez to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set Two)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Rivas Perez to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set Two)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Rivas Perez to Respond to Requests for Production (Set Two)

Tentative

The motions to compel are granted.

The requests for sanctions are granted in part and denied in part.

Background

On July 14, 2022, Plaintiff Edward Mkhchyan (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action against Jerome’s Furniture Warehouse, Fleet Logic, LLC, Alex Trucks, LLC, William Edgardo Rivas Perez, and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an alleged accident on August 21, 2020, at or near the intersection of Torrance Boulevard and Maple Avenue in Torrance.

On August 25, 2022, Defendants Alex Trucks, LLC and William Edgardo Rivas Perez filed an answer to the complaint.

On August 26, 2022, Defendant Jerome’s Furniture Warehouse filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against Diakon Logistics, LLC, Alex Trucks, LLC, William Edgardo Rivas Perez, and Roes 1 through 50.

On October 13, 2022, Defendant Fleet Logic, LLC dba Velocity Truck Rental and Leasing filed an answer to the complaint.

On December 7, 2022, Cross-Defendant Diakon Logistics (Delaware) Inc., erroneously sued as Diakon Logistics, LLC (“Diakon”), filed an answer to the cross-complaint of Jerome’s Furniture Warehouse and a cross-complaint against Alex Trucks, LLC, William Edgardo Rivas Perez, and Roes 1 through 50.

On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Diakon as Doe 1.  Diakon filed an answer to the complaint on July 9, 2024.

As it relates to the matters set for hearing on December 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed three discovery motions against Defendant William Edgardo Rivas Perez (“Defendant”) on November 13, 2024: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set Two); (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set Two); and (3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Requests for Production (Set Two).  In each motion, Plaintiff seeks sanctions.

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

On December 23, 2024, Defendant filed an unauthorized sur-reply.

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

Plaintiff served Defendant with form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production on October 3, 2023.  (Ayvazyan Decl. ¶ 4 & Exhs. 1.)  More than a year later, when Plaintiff still had not received any responses from Defendant, Plaintiff filed these three motions to compel. 

In opposition, Defendant stated that he would serve responses.  That, of course, is not a sufficient answer to the motion.  Plaintiff is entitled to responses, not promises of responses to come in the future.

In a sur-reply, Defendant’s counsel states that responses were served on December 23, 2024.  (Park Decl., ¶ 4.)  The responses are attached to counsel’s declaration, and the responses are not verified.  (Id., ¶ 4 & Exhs. A-C.)

Unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all, particularly where, as here, all objections were waived based on the failure to serve a timely response.

Accordingly, the motions to compel are GRANTED.

Turning now to sanctions, the request for sanctions in connection with the motion to compel responses to the special interrogatories is DENIED.  The notice of motion seeks sanctions against a different party – who of course cannot be sanctioned for the failure of Defendant to respond to discovery.   

The request for sanctions in connection with the other two motions is GRANTED IN PART.  Defendant has unsuccessfully opposed the motions to compel, Defendant has not acted with substantial justification, and there are no other circumstances that make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  In light of the relatively straightforward nature of these motions, and the economies of scale associated with preparing parallel discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions for each motion in the amount of $585, calculated based on 1.5 hours of attorney time for each motion, multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $350 per motion, plus a $60 filing fee.  (See Ayvazyan Decl., ¶¶ 6-8.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Defendant William Edgardo Rivas Perez to serve written, verified, code-complaint responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set Two) within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Defendant William Edgardo Rivas Perez to serve written, verified, code-complaint responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two) within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Defendant William Edgardo Rivas Perez to serve written, verified, code-complaint responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (Set Two) within 15 days of notice.

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Defendant William Edgardo Rivas Perez and counsel of record Ford Walker Haggerty & Behar LLP, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Plaintiff (through counsel) in the amount of $1,170 ($585 per motion multiplied by two motions) within 30 days of notice.

Moving party to give notice.