Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV24774, Date: 2025-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24774    Hearing Date: April 7, 2025    Dept: 29

Daily v. Goldberg
22STCV24774
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)

Tentative

The motions to compel are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

On August 1, 2022, Jane Daily (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Adam Daniel Goldberg, Peterberg Properties, Inc., Roberto Pantoja Avina, and Does 1 through 15 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident on July 30, 2020.

On May 30, 2024, Adam Daniel Goldberg and Peterberg Properties, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Roberto Pantoja Avina and Roes 1 through 10.

On February 25, 2025, Defendants filed these three discovery motions: (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One); (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One); and (3) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One).

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 May 30, 2024, Defendants served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One). (Diaz Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.)  Defendants have not received any responses.  (Id., ¶ 4.)

Defendants need show nothing more.

The motions to compel 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 Defendants’ motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Jane Daily to serve written, verified, code-compliant responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One), within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Jane Daily to serve written, verified, code-compliant responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories (Set One), within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Jane Daily to serve written, verified, code-compliant responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Requests for Production (Set One), within 15 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Defendants’ requests for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.