Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV15132, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15132    Hearing Date: June 10, 2025    Dept: 29

Yorke v. Lim
23STCV15132
Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Deandre Yorke and Anthony Cruz to Respond to Written Discovery

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

On June 28, 2023, Deandre Yorke and Anthony Cruz (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed an action against Cody Lim, Chong Lee (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 10 for negligence and negligent entrustment/supervision arising out of an automobile accident on June 30, 2021.

On January 17, 2025, Defendants filed an answer.

On May 16, 2025, Defendants filed this motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to written discovery.

No opposition has been filed.

Trial is set for June 2, 2026.

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

No proof of service has been filed.  Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.

Although not the basis for the Court’s ruling, the Court also notes that Defendants filed one motion for what should have been six motions. Combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.)

If Defendants refile their motion, they must file a proof of service and must file a separate motion for each discovery request.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion of Defendants Cody Lim and Chong Lee to compel Plaintiffs Deandre Yorke and Anthony Cruz to respond to written discovery.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.