Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV09860, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV09860 Hearing Date: February 4, 2025 Dept: 29
Hoxha v. McCormick
23STCV09860
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 Requests for Production (Set One)
Tentative
The motions to compel are granted.
The requests for sanctions are denied.
Background
On May 2, 2023, Artan Hoxha (“Plaintiff”)
filed a complaint against Raymond D. McCormick (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through
50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an alleged
accident on May 7, 2021.
On June 21, 2024, Defendant filed an answer.
On December 19, 2024, Defendant filed these
motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to written discovery. 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
On August 26, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff
with Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request
for Production of Documents, Set One. (Pincus Decls., ¶ 2; Exhs. A.) No responses
have been received. (Id., ¶ 4.)
Defendant need show nothing more.
Accordingly, the motions to compel responses
to written discovery 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, Plaintiff has not opposed the motions. Accordingly, the requests for sanctions are
denied.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions
to compel responses to written discovery.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Artan
Hoxha to provide code-compliant, written, verified responses, without objection,
to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), within 15 days of notice.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Artan
Hoxha to provide code-compliant, written, verified responses, without objection,
to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One), within 15 days of notice.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Artan
Hoxha to provide code-compliant, written, verified responses, without objection,
to Defendant’s Requests for Production (Set One), within 15 days of notice.
The Court DENIES Defendant’s requests
for sanctions.
Moving party is ORDERED to give
notice.