Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV22859, Date: 2024-03-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV22859 Hearing Date: March 11, 2024 Dept: 29
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Form
Interrogatories (Set One)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Special Interrogatories
(Set One)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Requests for Production
(Set One)
Tentative
The motions to compel are granted.
The requests for sanctions are denied.
Background
On July 15, 2022, Plaintiff Gor Sargsyan (“Plaintiff”)
filed a complaint against Gullermo Ramirez Moreno (“Defendant”) and Does 1
through 10 asserting causes of action for Motor Vehicle Negligence and General
Negligence arising from an automobile accident occurring on June 15, 2021. Defendant filed an answer on October 5, 2022.
On April 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed these three motions to
compel Defendant’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).)
Discussion
On
February 6, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with Form Interrogatories (Set
One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of
Documents (Set One). (Kazaryan Decls., ¶ 3.) No responses have been received
from Defendant. (Id., ¶ 5.)
Plaintiff
need show nothing more. Plaintiff’s motions
to compel Defendant’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special
Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One)
are GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. Code of
Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), that statute does not
provide an independent basis to award sanctions; the 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 statutes governing interrogatories and requests
for production state that 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].” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§§ 2030.290, subd. (c) & 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, there is no opposition, and thus no authorization
for sanctions to be granted.
The Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Justice Moor,
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. 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.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motions
to compel are GRANTED.
The
Court ORDERS Defendant to
serve verified, code-compliant written responses, without objection, to
Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 21 days of
notice.
The
Court ORDERS Defendant to
serve verified, code-compliant written responses, without objection, to
Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 21 days of
notice.
The
Court ORDERS Defendant to
serve verified, code-compliant written responses, without objection, to
Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (Set One) within 21 days of
notice.
Plaintiff’s requests for
sanctions are DENIED.
Moving party is ORDERED to
give notice.