Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV17336, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV17336 Hearing Date: April 5, 2024 Dept: 29
Defendants’ Motions to Compel Plaintiff Daniela Castro to
Respond to Form Interrogatories and Demand for Production of Documents
Tentative
The motions are granted.
Background
On July
24, 2023, Jonathan Velasco and Daniela Castro (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against
Parastoo Davood and Romain Hiniszlos (collectively “Defendants”) for negligence
arising from an automobile accident occurring on June 1, 2022.
On November
16, 2023, Defendants served written discovery on Plaintiff. (Lee Decls., ¶2.)
On February
13, 2024, Defendants filed motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form
Interrogatories and Demand for Production of Documents. 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).) 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).)
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).)
"Except as
otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of
right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have
motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date
initially set for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020,
subd. (a).)
Discussion
On
November 16, 2023, Defendants served written discovery on Plaintiff. (Lee
Decls., ¶2.)
Plaintiff has not responded. (Id.,
¶ 3.)
Defendants need show nothing more. The motions to compel are GRANTED,
Defendants’ requests for sanctions are DENIED. On motions to compel initial responses to
interrogatories and requests for production, the Civil Discovery Act authorizes
sanctions against a party or attorney “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” the
motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c)
& 2031.300(c).) But here, no opposition has been filed.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030,
subdivision (a), does not provide an independent basis to award sanctions; the
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.) As Justice Moor explained in City of Los
Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504, section
2023.030 does “not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary
sanctions for misuse of discovery.” (The
Court is aware that the California Supreme Court has granted review of the City
of Los Angeles case. 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 the motions to compel.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code-compliant, verified, written
responses, without objection, to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One) and
Requests for Production (Set One) within 30 days of notice.
The
Court DENIES the requests for sanctions.
Moving party
is ORDERED to give notice.