Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV35531, Date: 2024-01-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV35531 Hearing Date: February 28, 2024 Dept: 29
Motions to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (Sets One) filed by Plaintiff Hengameh Hakaeian.
The motions are denied as
moot.
The requests for sanctions
are granted in part.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out
of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on December 3, 2020, at or near 189
The Grove Drive in Los Angeles. On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff
Hengameh Hakaeian (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint against Defendants ACCO
Engineered Systems, Inc, Jon Eric Sohegian (collectively, “Defendants”), and
Does 1 through 20, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and
general negligence. On December 20, 2022, Defendants filed their
answer.
On October 27, 2023,
Plaintiff served discovery on Defendants, including Form Interrogatories (Set
One) to each Defendant; Requests for Production (Set One) to each Defendant;
and Requests for Admission (Sets One) to each Defendant. (Zivari Decls.,
¶¶ 4-5 & Exhs. B.) Plaintiff granted Defendants an extension of
time to respond, but no responses were provided. (Id., ¶¶
6-10.)
On December 19, 2023,
Plaintiff filed six discovery motions.
Four of these discovery
motions were scheduled for hearing on February 27, 2024.
The remaining two motions
are scheduled for hearing on February 28. These are motions to
compel each Defendant to provide initial responses to requests for
production. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions.
No opposition has been
filed to any of these motions, but the Court was advised at the hearing on
February 27 that each Defendant had provided (belated) initial responses to the
requests for production.
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., § 2023.030, 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).)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff served each
Defendant on October 27, 2023, with Requests for Production (Set
One). (Zivari Decls., ¶¶ 4-5 & Exhs. B.)
Neither Defendant provided
timely responses. Accordingly, all
objections are waived (absent an order granting relief from waiver on the
noticed motion of Defendants).
Neither
Defendant has filed any opposition to any of these motions.
At a
hearing on February 27, the Court was advised that each Defendant had served
(untimely) initial responses.
Accordingly,
the motions to compel initial responses are DENIED as moot.
If Plaintiff
contends that the responses are not code compliant, Plaintiff may initiate the
meet-and-confer process and, if necessary, file a timely motion to compel further
responses and reserve an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) date.
Plaintiff’s
requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part. The service of untimely
responses does not render moot the request for sanctions. Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to
compel initial responses, and the economies of scale associated with filing
multiple discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions on each motion in the
amount of $561.65, calculated based on 1 hours of attorney work, multiplied by
attorney’s billing rate of $500 per hour plus a $61.65 filing
fee. (Zivari Decls., ¶¶ 1-16.)
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s motions to compel initial
responses to Requests for Production.
The Court GRANTS in part
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.
The Court ORDERS Defendant
ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc., to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil
Discovery Act to Plaintiff in the amount of $561.65 within 30 days of notice.
The Court ORDERS Defendant
Jon Eric Sohegian to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to
Plaintiff in the amount of $561.65 within 30 days of notice.
Moving party to give
notice.