Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV30723, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30723    Hearing Date: February 16, 2024    Dept: 29

Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) filed by Defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P.

Tentative

The motion is GRANTED.

Background

On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff Duane Moody (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Best Buy Co., Inc., and DOES 1 through 25, for General Negligence and Premises Liability causes of action.

On November 10, 2022, Defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P., erroneously sued as Best Buy Co., Inc., (“Defendant”) served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.

On March 20, 2023, Defendant filed the Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.

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).)

“[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].”  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 407.)  Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses … the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.”¿ (Id. at pp. 408-409.)¿ This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.”¿ (Id. at p. 408.)¿ If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.”¿ (Id. at p. 409.) “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)  

"Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).)

Discussion

On November 10, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One). (Classen Decl., ¶ 2.) No responses have been received. (Id., ¶ 7.)

Defendant need show no more.

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.

The Court GRANTS in part Defendant’s request for sanctions.  Given the relatively straightforward nature of the motion to compel, the Court sets sanctions in the amount of $370, calculated based on two hours of attorney time at counsel’s reasonable hourly billing rate of $185. (Id., ¶ 8.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve verified, code-complaint, written responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) within 14 days of notice.

The GRANTS in part Defendant’s request for sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Defendant in the amount of $370 within 30 days of notice.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.