Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV01791, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01791    Hearing Date: April 15, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)

Tentative

The motions are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

On January 26, 2023, Jennfier Long (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Jing Luo and Lukens Realty, LLC (collectively “Defendants”), as well as Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for negligence and premises liability arising out of slip and fall occurring on April 11, 2021. 

Defendants filed their answer on March 20, 2023.  On the same day, Defendants served Plaintiff with written discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).  (Powers Decls., ¶ 4 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff did not respond.  (Id., ¶ 8.)

On June 22, 2023, Defendants filed these motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production (Set One).  Defendants also seek sanctions. 

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).) Requests for admission may be propounded on a party without leave of court 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by that party, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.020(b).)

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 March 20, 2023, Defendants served form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production on Plaintiff. (Powers Decls., ¶ 4 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff has not responded. (Id., ¶ 8.)

Defendants need show nothing more. The motions to compel are GRANTED,

Defendants’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED. 

Defendants seek sanctions under section 2030.290, subdivision (c); section 2031.300, subdivision(c); sections 2023.010, et seq.  Section 2030.290, subdivision (c), and section 2031.300, subdivision (c) authorize an award of sanctions against a party or attorney “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” a motion to compel initial responses; here, no opposition was filed.  Sections 2023.010 does “not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery.”  (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504.)  (The Court is aware that the California Supreme Court has granted review of the City of Los Angeles case, but the Court notes that the order granting review, filed on January 25, 2023, states that pending review, the appellate opinion “may be cited,” including “for its persuasive value.”  The Court finds the reasoning of Justice Moor in the City of Los Angeles case to be persuasive.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve written, code-compliant, verified responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 21 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve written, code-compliant, verified responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 21 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve written, code-compliant, verified responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Requests for Production (Set One) within 21 days of notice.

The Court DENIES the requests for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.