Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV32115, Date: 2024-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV32115, Date: 2024-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32115 Hearing Date: August 2, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Ventura Cruz Dominguez to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents

Tentative

The motion is granted in part, conditioned upon payment of filing fees to the Court.

Background

On September 30, 2022, Ventura Cruz Dominguez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Ryan Andrew Alamrio Orquiza, Arline J. Almario Orquiza, and Rogelio R. Orquiza (collectively “Defendants”) for motor vehicle negligence and negligence per se arising from an accident occurring on October 7, 2020.

On February 7, 2024, Defendants filed an answer.

On June 26, 2024, Defendants filed one singular motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production. Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 24; Defendants filed a reply on July 29.

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).)

Discussion

On February 7, 2024, Defendants served Plaintiff with written discovery. (Gluski Decl., ¶ 4.) No responses have been received. (Id., ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states that counsel has been unable to communicate with Plaintiff. (Opposition, 2:24.) Plaintiff further argues that the filing of one motion for three items of written discovery is improper. (Id., 2:13-14.)

The Court finds that notice and service on Plaintiff’s counsel was proper and is sufficient. Plaintiff has not responded. That is all Defendants must show. The motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to the form interrogatories, the special interrogatories, and the request for production is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is correct that Defendants have improperly combined what should have been three motions into one. 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 two additional filing fees ($120). This ruling is conditioned upon Defendants payment of $120 to the Court.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is granted in part. Given the straightforward nature of this motion, the Court sets sanctions in the amount of $610, based on two hours of attorney time multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $220 per hour, plus two hours of time by counsel’s legal intern at a rate of $85 per hours. (Gluski Decl., ¶¶ 10-14.)

Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff. No sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court finds that under the circumstances, sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel would not be just.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Conclusion

The Court ORDERS Defendants to pay $120 to the Court in unpaid filing fees within 10 days of the hearing, as Defendants should have filed three separate motions, not one omnibus motion. The Court FURTHER ORDERS Defendants to file and serve proof of payment within 14 days of the hearing.

Conditioned on the payment of the $120 set forth above, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Plaintiff Ventura Cruz Dominguez to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 30 days after the later of (a) notice of this ruling and (b) notice that Defendants have made the payment of $120 required by this ruling.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 30 days after the later of (a) notice of this ruling and (b) notice that Defendants have made the payment of $120 required by this ruling.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Requests for Production (Set One) within 30 days after the later of (a) notice of this ruling and (b) notice that Defendants have made the payment of $120 required by this ruling.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay sanctions of $610 to Defendants within 30 days after the later of (a) notice of this ruling and (b) notice that Defendants have made the payment of $120 required by this ruling.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.