Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV23014, Date: 2025-01-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV23014 Hearing Date: January 24, 2025 Dept: 29
Nichols v. Blum
22STCV23014
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 to Respond to Requests for Production (Set
One)
Tentative
The motions are granted.
The requests for sanctions are denied.
Background
On June 18, 2022, Chester Nichols
(“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Erwin Robert Blum and Does 1 through 50
for negligence arising out of an automobile accident on July 20, 2020.
On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff amended the
complaint to name Estate of Erwin Robert Blum (“Defendant”) as Doe 1.
On February 21, 2024, Defendant filed an
answer.
On December 17, 2024, Defendant filed three
discovery motions. 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
On August 26, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff
with Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand
for Production of Documents, Set One. (Garcia Decls., ¶ 3; Exhs. A.) No responses
have been received. (Id., ¶ 6.)
Defendant need show nothing more.
Accordingly, the motions to compel
written discovery are GRANTED.
The requests for sanctions are denied. In the chapters of the Civil Discovery Act
governing interrogatories and requests for production, the Legislature has
authorized sanctions in the context of a motion to compel initial responses
“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 has not
opposed the motions.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions
to compel.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Chester
Nichols to serve written, verified, code-compliant, responses, without
objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of
notice.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Chester
Nichols to serve written, verified, code-compliant, responses, without
objections, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of
notice.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Chester
Nichols to serve written, verified, code-compliant, responses, without
objections, to Defendant’s Requests for Production (Set One) within 10 days of
notice.
The Court DENIES Defendant’s requests
for sanctions.
Moving party is ORDERED to give
notice.