Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV28603, Date: 2024-06-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28603    Hearing Date: June 26, 2024    Dept: 29

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 are denied.

Background

On September 1, 2022, Efren Juarez-Lara (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Frank Martin Scialpi (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for premises liability and general negligence arising out of an incident on or about September 3, 2020, in which Plaintiff was injured while working on Defendants’ premises.

Defendant filed an answer on January 18, 2024, and an amended answer on March 1, 2024.

On January 8, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).  (Todd Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. 1.)  After requesting and receiving a series of extensions of time to respond, Plaintiff served responses on April 17, 2024.  (Id., ¶ 8 & Exhs. 8.)  The responses were essentially all objections, except for in response to Form Interrogatories 1.1, 2.1, and 2.2.  (Id., ¶ 8 & Exhs. 8.)  No verifications were provided.  (Id., ¶ 9.)  Plaintiff also produced more than 10,000 pages of medical records that, according to counsel, were “not labeled or organized in any fashion.”  (Id., ¶ 8.)

On May 21, 2024, Defendant filed these three motions: (1) motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Form Interrogatories; (2) motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Special Interrogatories; and (3) motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Requests for Production. Plaintiff filed a combined opposition on June 12.  Defendant filed three replies on June 20.

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).) Requests for admission may be propounded on a party without leave of court 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by that party, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.020(b).)

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

Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).  (Todd Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. 1.)  Plaintiff served responses on April 17, 2024.  (Id., ¶ 8 & Exhs. 8.)  Plaintiff objected to every discovery request; in response to three basic form interrogatories (Nos. 1.1, 2.1, and 2.2), Plaintiff included objections and a substantive response.  (Id., ¶ 8 & Exhs. 8.)  No verifications were provided.  (Id., ¶ 9.) 

Defendant moves for an order under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300 compelling Plaintiff to provide initial responses to the discovery.  The motions are DENIED.  Plaintiff has responded.  If Defendant contends that the objections lack merit, the Civil Discovery Act provides a remedy (a motion to compel further responses) under sections 2030.300 (for interrogatories) and 2031.310 (for requests for production), subject to certain procedural requirements.  In this context, an order compelling initial responses under sections 2030.290 and 2031.300 is not available.

Moreover, as to the responses to the Special Interrogatories and Request For Production, the Court notes that a party verification is not required for objection-only responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a) & 2031.250, subd. (a).)

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff to provide initial responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.