Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV10672, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV10672 Hearing Date: May 7, 2024 Dept: 29
Motions to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories
(Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request for
Production of Documents (Set One)
Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted as True the Matters Specified in Requests
for Admission (Set One)
Tentative
The Court continues the hearing.
Background
On May 11, 2023, Darrell Jones
(“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against UPS, Federal Express and Does 1 through
25, asserting causes of action for emotional distress and intentional
infliction of emotional distress arising from a verbal altercation occurring on
June 14, 2022.
On July 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a question
to dismiss UPS.
On August 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a
First Amended Complaint asserting the same two causes of action and naming as
defendants The UPS Store Catherine Dash Franchise Owner; Federal Express; Doe 1
Federal Express Driver, and Does 2 through 25.
On October 10, 2023, Defendant Federal
Express Corporation (“FedEx”) appeared and filed a demurrer and motion to
strike.
On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a
notice of settlement of the entire case.
On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff
substituted in as his own counsel. He
now is representing himself.
On January 31, 2024, Federal Express Corporation
(“Defendant”) served Plaintiff with written discovery, including Form
Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for
Production (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One). (Randall Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs A.) Plaintiff did not respond to the discovery
requests.
On March 28, 2024, Defendant filed
motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to the interrogatories and document requests
and a motion for a deemed-admitted order with regard to the Requests for
Admission.
On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a
declaration (unsworn) in which he alleges unethical treatment in connection with
the case. Among other things, Plaintiff
stated that he was told “not to worry” about the discovery, and he was asked to
provide a medical authorization form, which he did provide. It is unclear whether Plaintiff served FedEx’s
counsel with this declaration.
On May 6, just one day before the
hearing, Plaintiff filed a single document that appears to be a consolidated response
to the pending motion to strike (set for hearing on May 28) and the discovery
motions (set for hearing on May 7). The
response attaches responses to the pending discovery, but it appears that the discovery
responses are unsworn. Also, it is again
unclear whether Plaintiff served FedEx’s counsel with this response.
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).)
A party must
respond to requests for admission within 30 days after service. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2033.250, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for admission are directed
does not provide a timely response, the propounding party “may move for an
order that … the truth of [the] matters specified in the requests be deemed
admitted.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) There is no time
limit for such a motion, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id.,
§ 2033.280; 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., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)
The court “shall”
make the order that the truth of the matters specified in the request be deemed
admitted unless the court “finds that the party to whom the requests for
admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a
proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial
compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); see St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014)
223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778-780.)
“It
is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7
(commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose
failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this
motion [to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified in the requests for
admission].” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2033.280, 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 January 31, 2024, FedEx served
written discovery on Plaintiff. (Randall Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff did not serve a timely response but
appears to have responded on or about May 6.
Of course, FedEx, through no fault of
its own, has not had the opportunity to respond to the May 6 filing.
The following all appear unclear to
the Court: whether Plaintiff served the April 15 filing on FedEx’s counsel;
whether Plaintiff served the May 6 filing on FedEx’s counsel; whether Plaintiff
verified, under oath, the discovery responses attached to the May 6 filing; and
whether this matter has settled.
Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the hearing
on these motions to May 28, 2024 (when another hearing in this matter is already
on calendar).
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve counsel
for FedEx with a copy of the April 15 and May 6 filings and to file a proof of
service with the Court.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to proof
that the discovery responses attached to the May 6 filing were verified, under
oath.
The Court GRANTS FedEx leave to file
a reply to Plaintiff’s filings by no later than five court days prior to the
continued hearing date.
Conclusion
The Court CONTINUES this hearing to May 28, 2024,
at 1:30 pm, in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthourse.
Plaintiff
in pro per and counsel may appear in person or by remote means (Court Connect).
Moving party
is ORDERED to give notice.