Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV30527, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV30527, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30527 Hearing Date: January 21, 2025 Dept: 29

Ruan v. Amador
22STCV30527
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)

Tentative

The motions are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

On September 19, 2022, Denise Ruan and Sophia Ruan (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Andy Amador (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 20, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an alleged accident on September 19, 2020.

On March 21, 2024, Defendant filed an answer.

On December 4, 2024, Defendant filed these three motions to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to written discovery.

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).)

“In addition to the number of interrogatories permitted by Sections 2030.030 and 2030.040, a party may propound a supplemental interrogatory to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made by any party in response to interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070, 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).)

“In addition to the demands for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling permitted by this chapter, a party may propound a supplemental demand to inspect, copy, test, or sample any later acquired or discovered documents, tangible things, land or other property, or electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.050, 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

Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiffs to respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.

On March 21, 2024, Defendant propounded the written discovery in question on Plaintiffs. (Reed Decls., ¶ 2; see also Exhs. A.) Plaintiffs failed to respond to discovery. (Id., ¶ 4.)

Defendant need show nothing more.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions for an order compelling Plaintiffs to respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, are GRANTED.

The Court notes, however, that each set of discovery requests should have been the subject of a separate motion. By grouping Plaintiffs together, Defendant filed three motions for what should have been six motions. Combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Thus, Defendants are ordered to pay additional filing fees.

As for sanctions, 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, Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion, and thus the requests for sanctions are denied.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions to compel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Court DENIES Defendant’s requests for sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Defendant to pay three additional filing fees to the Clerk of the Court within 15 days of the hearing and to file and serve proof of payment with the Court within 22 days of the hearing.

Moving Party is to provide notice.