Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV28836, Date: 2025-06-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV28836 Hearing Date: June 2, 2025 Dept: 29
Sinanyan v. Garay
22STCV28836
Motion to Compel Plaintiff Gabriel Gonzalez De La Torre to Respond to Requests
for Production of Documents (Set One)
Tentative
The
motion is denied without prejudice.
Background
On September 2, 2022, Manuk
Sinanyan (“Sinanyan”) and Gabriel Gonzalez De La Torre (“De La Torre”) filed a
complaint against Josslyn Garay (“Garay”), Charlyn Fernandez (“Fernandez”), and
Does 1 through 10 for general negligence, motor vehicle negligence, and
negligent entrustment arising out of an accident on September 4, 2020 at
Saticoy Street and Alabama Avenue in Los Angeles.
On April 12, 2024, Fernandez
filed an answer.
On September 4, 2024, Garay filed
an answer.
On January
21, 2025, Garay filed this motion to compel De La Torre to respond to Requests
for Production of Documents (Set One). A declaration errata was filed on
February 3, 2025.
No
opposition has been filed.
This
motion was original set to be heard on March 4, 2025. The hearing was continued
to April 3, 2025, and then again to June 2, 2025, at the request of the moving
party.
No
notice as to the continuance of this motion has been filed.
Trial is
set for November 20, 2025.
Legal Standard
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
The hearing on this motion has been continued twice at
the request of moving party Defendant Garay.
Garay has submitted no evidence showing that Plaintiff De La Torre (or
any other party) was given notice of the new hearing date.
Accordingly, this motion is denied without prejudice.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion
to compel discovery responses filed by Defendant Josslyn Garay.
Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.