Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 23STCV15899, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV15899, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15899 Hearing Date: April 10, 2024 Dept: 29

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One)

Tentative

The motion is granted.

The request for sanctions is denied.

Background

On July 7, 2023, Hector Arroyo (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against SHZ Development, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for general negligence and premises liability arising from an injury at a construction site on August 24, 2021, on Melrose Avenue in Los Angeles.

On August 31, 2023, Defendant filed its answer. The next day, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Chip-Rocke Construction, Inc, and Roes 1 through 50 for Equitable Indemnity, Contribution, Express Indemnity, Breach of Contract, and Declaratory Relief. On October 16, 2023, Defendant filed a request for dismissal of the claims against Chip-Construction, Inc., in the cross-complaint.

On October 9, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One). (Schmid Decl., ¶¶ 6-9 & Exhs. A-D.) Plaintiff did not respond to the discovery. (Id., ¶ 13.)

On January 31, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to compel. 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

Defendant served Plaintiff with form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production on October 9, 2023. (Schmid Decl., ¶¶ 6-8 & Exhs. A-D.) Plaintiff did not serve responses to these discovery requestes. (Id., ¶ 13.)

Defendant need show nothing more. The motion to compel is granted.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.

Defendant seeks sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (c), and 2031.300, subdivision (c). These statutes authorize an award of sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” a motion to compel initial responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c); § 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, Plaintiff did not file any opposition, and so there is no authority under these statutes to award sanctions against Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 does not provide an independent basis to award sanctions; to the contrary, the statute expressly states that a sanctions award must be “authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) The Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Justice Moor, recently made this very point in City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504 (“sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery … without regard to any other provision of the Discovery Act”). The Court is aware that the California Supreme Court has granted review of the City of Los Angeles case, but the Court notes that the order granting review, filed on January 25, 2023, states that pending review, the appellate opinion “may be cited,” including “for its persuasive value.” The Court finds the reasoning of Justice Moor to be persuasive.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide verified, code-compliant, written responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One) within 21 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.