Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV12699, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12699    Hearing Date: May 30, 2025    Dept: 29

Rhosen v. Soto-Zarate
23STCV12699
Motion to Compel Plaintiff Geraldine Rhosen to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) 

Tentative

The motion is denied as moot.

The request for sanctions is denied.

Background

On June 2, 2023, Geraldine Rhosen (“Plaintiff”) and Sybil Gonzalez filed a complaint against Pedro Soto-Zarate, Octavio Quezada, Lucina Galicia, Angels Concrete Corporation (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 30 for motor vehicle negligence arising out of an accident on June 15, 2021, on Amar Road near Temple Avenue in West Covina.

On September 4, 2024, Defendants filed an answer.

On May 2, 2025, Defendants filed this motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Special Interrogatories (Set Two).  Defendants also seek sanctions.

Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 14, and Defendants filed a reply on May 22.

Trial is set for August 18, 2025.

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).)

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 27, 2025, Defendants served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories (Set Two).  (Lowtrip Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff served unverified responses, with objections, on March 11, 2025. (Id., ¶ 5.)  Following an exchange of emails with Plaintiff, and when no further responses were served, Defendants filed this motion.  (Id., ¶¶ 6-13.)

On May 14, 2025, while this motion was pending, Plaintiff served further, verified responses, without objections.  (Sullivan Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.)

Defendants’ motion to compel responses is denied as moot.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is denied.  In contrast to other provisions in the Civil Discovery (such as Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050, subdivision (a), and section 2033.280, subdivision (c)), the section in the Civil Discovery Act governing the failure to provide initial responses to interrogatories directs the Court to impose monetary sanctions (subject to certain exceptions) “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” the motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)  Here, Plaintiff has not unsuccessfully opposed the motions; to the contrary, the Court is denying the motions (as moot).

Conclusion 

The Court DENIES AS MOOT the motion of Defendants to compel Plaintiff Geraldine Rhosen to respond to Special Interrogatories (Set Two). 

The Court DENIES the request of Defendants for sanctions. 

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.