Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV03475, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03475    Hearing Date: January 21, 2025    Dept: 29

Brooks v. Zamora
23STCV03475
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Alma Arely Robles to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Alma Arely Robles to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Alma Arely Robles to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)

Tentative

The motions to compel responses to the form interrogatories and special interrogatories are granted.

The motion to compel responses to the requests for production is denied without prejudice.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

On February 16, 2023, Kejenae Brooks (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Noel Arreola Zamora (“Zamora”), Alma Arely Robles (“Defendant”), and Does 1 through 20, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an alleged accident on March 5, 2021.

On March 20, 2024, Defendant filed an answer. On April 3, 2024, Zamora filed an answer.

On December 2, 2024, the Court granted the motion to intervene filed by Integon Preferred Insurance Company (“Integon”).  Integon filed its answer in intervention on December 3.

On October 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed these three motions to compel.  Plaintiff filed amended notices of motion on November 15,

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).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for orders compelling Defendant to respond to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production.

On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff propounded the written discovery in question on Defendant. (Zurita-Cruz Decls., ¶ 3; see also Exhs. 1.) Defendant failed to respond to discovery. (Id., ¶ 8.)

For the motion to compel responses to Requests for Production (Set One), the proof of service attached to the discovery does not match, as it is a proof of service for another document in another case. As Plaintiff has not provided a proof of service for this discovery, the Court must deny, without prejudice, the motion to compel Defendant to respond to the requests for production.

For the motions to compel responses to the interrogatories, all substantive and procedural requirements are satisfied.  The motions are granted.

As for sanctions, in the chapters of the Civil Discovery Act governing interrogatories and requests for production, the Legislature has authorized sanctions in the context of a motion to compel initial responses “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” the motion to compel.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) & 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, Defendant has not opposed the motion, and thus the requesrts for sanctions are denied

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motions to compel responses to the form interrogatories and the special interrogatories. 

The Court DENIES without the prejudice the motion to compel responses to the requests for production.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Alma Arely Robles to serve written, verified, code-compliant responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Alma Arely Robles to serve written, verified, code-compliant responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 15 days of notice.

The Court DENIES the requests for sanctions.

Moving Party is to provide notice.