Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV24812, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV24812 Hearing Date: June 3, 2025 Dept: 29
Thomas
v. Robles
22STCV24812
Motion to Compel Plaintiff Micheal Thomas to Respond
to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Tentative
The
motion is denied without prejudice.
Background
On August 2, 2022, Micheal Thomas and Chase Thomas filed a
complaint against Rafael Ramos Robles, the City of Los Angeles (“City”), and
Does 1 through 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising
out of an accident on November 8, 2021.
Chase Thomas is a minor (DOB 8/4/12), and the application of
Micheal Thomas to serve as his guardian ad litem (GAL) was granted on August
15, 2022.
On October 18, 2022, City filed its answer and a
cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 10.
On August 5, 2024, Plaintiffs’ former counsel was
relieved. The Court advised Micheal Thomas (orally at the hearing,
and in the Minute Order) that, without counsel, he cannot represent Chase
Thomas; new counsel for Chase Thomas will need to be retained, or the causes of
action filed on his behalf will need to be dismissed without prejudice.
On April
29, 2025, City filed this motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories
and special interrogatories.
No
opposition has been filed.
Trial is
set for October 9, 2025.
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).)
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
The motion is denied without prejudice.
City served a
self-represented Plaintiff by electronic transmission. This is improper.
Electronic service is not mandatory for self-represented individuals and is a
proper method of service only when express consent has been given. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c).)
In addition, although not
a basis for the Court’s ruling, the Court notes that if City seeks to refile, a
separate motion should be filed for each set of discovery as to which relief is
sought. It is improper to file a single motion to compel responses
to multiple sets of discovery.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion
of Defendant City of Los Angeles to compel Plaintiff Micheal Thomas to respond to
form interrogatories and special interrogatories.
Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.