Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV02715, Date: 2024-08-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV02715 Hearing Date: August 30, 2024 Dept: 29
Babolhwaedji v. Ramirez
23STCV02715
City’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories and
Special Interrogatories
City’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production
Tentative
The motions are granted.
The requests for sanctions are denied.
Background
On February
7, 2023, Mostafa Babolhwaedji aka Michael Hawaeji (“Plaintiff”) filed a
complaint against “Jesus Ramirez as an employee of City of Los Angeles” and
Does 1 through 20 for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence arising
out of an accident occurring on February 11, 2022.
On February
8, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name City of Los Angeles (“City”) as
Doe 1.
On October
5, 2023, City filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against
Roes 1 through 20.
On July 25, 2024, City filed a motion
to compel Plaintiff to respond to Form Interrogatories and Special
Interrogatories, and a motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Request for Production.
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 October 5, 2023, City served Plaintiff
with written discovery, including form interrogatories, special
interrogatories, and requests for production. (Bahn Decls., ¶ 2.) No responses have been
received. (Id., ¶ 6.)
City need not show anything more. The motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to
the form interrogatories, the special interrogatories, and the request for
production are GRANTED.
The request for sanctions in
connection with the motion to compel responses to the interrogatories and demand
for production are DENIED.
Sanctions for motions to compel initial
responses to interrogatories and requests for production are authorized against
a party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion.
(See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) & 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, Plaintiff
has not opposed the motions.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the motions to compel.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written,
verified responses, without objection, to City’s Form Interrogatories (Set One)
within 15 days of notice.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written,
verified responses, without objection, to City’s Special Interrogatories (Set
One) within 15 days of notice.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written,
verified responses, without objection, to City’s Requests for Production (Set
One) within 15 days of notice.
City’s requests for sanctions are denied.
Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.