Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV05566, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV05566 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: 29
Warzecha v. ABM
Industries
23STCV05566
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production (Set One)
Tentative
The motions are granted.
Background
On March 14, 2023, Joelle Nicole Warzecha (“Plaintiff”)
filed a complaint against ABM Industries Incorporated, Cedars-Sinai Medical
Center, and Does 1 to 100 for negligence and premises liability arising out of
a slip and fall incident occurring on March 15, 2021.
On February 14, 2024, Cedars-Sinai Medical
Center (“CSMC”) filed an answer. On March 20, 2024, ABM Industry Group, LLC (erroneously
sued as ABM Industries Incorporated) (“ABM”) filed an answer.
On June 6, 2024, CSMC filed these
three motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One),
Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production (Set One). Plaintiff
filed an opposition on July 10. CSMC filed
replies on July 18.
The hearings on these motions were originally
set for July 25 and were continued to August 21.
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 22, 2024, CSMC served Plaintiff with
discovery, including Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request
for Production. (Preston Decls., ¶ 4 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff has not responded. (Id., ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff concedes that she must respond to the discovery
but her counsel states, in opposition, that there have been communication
issues between attorney and client and a motion to be relieved in pending.
(Cutting Decl., ¶¶ 4, 6.)
CSMC need not show anything more. The motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to
the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and the Request for Production
are GRANTED.
CSMC does not seek sanctions.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS CSMC’s Motions to Compel Plaintiff Joelle
Nicole Warzecha to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special
Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production (Set One).
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written,
verified responses, without objection, to CSMC’s Form Interrogatories within 21
days of notice.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written,
verified responses, without objection, to CSMC’s Special Interrogatories within
21 days of notice.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written,
verified responses, without objection, to CSMC’s Requests for Production within
21 days of notice.
Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.