Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV17715, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17715    Hearing Date: February 28, 2025    Dept: 29

Rivas v. O’Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc.
23STCV17715
Motion of Plaintiff Dora Alicia Beltran to Compel Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion of Plaintiff Dora Alicia Beltran to Compel Defendant Diaz to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion of Plaintiff Samuel Beltran to Compel Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion of Plaintiff Samuel Beltran to Compel Defendant Diaz to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)

Tentative

The motions of Plaintiff Dora Alicia Beltran and Plaintiff Samuel Beltran as against Defendant Diaz are granted.

The motions of Plaintiff Dora Alicia Beltran and Plaintiff Samuel Beltran as against Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC are denied.

Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions are granted in part and denied in part.

Defendants’ requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

On July 27, 2023, Coralia Beltran Rivas, Dora Alicia Beltran, and Samuel Beltran (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc.; O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC; Ozark Services, Inc.; Ozark Auto Distributors, Inc.; CSK Auto, Inc.; Hi-Lo Auto Supply, L.P.; Francisco Javier Diaz; and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence arising out of an accident on August 2, 2021, at or near the intersection of Alameda Street and East 24th Street in Los Angeles.

On July 16, 2024, the Court, at the request of Plaintiffs, dismissed O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc.; Ozark Services, Inc.; Ozark Auto Distributors, Inc.; CSK Auto, Inc.; and Hi-Lo Auto Supply, L.P.

On July 24, 2024, O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (erroneously sued as O’Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc.) (“OAE”) and Francisco Javier Diaz (“Diaz”) (collectively “Defendants”) filed an answer.

On January 31, 2025, Plaintiffs filed these four discovery motions:  Plaintiff Dora Alicia Beltran’s motion to compel Defendant OAE to respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One); Plaintiff Dora Alicia Beltran’s motion to compel Defendant Diaz to respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One); Plaintiff Samuel Beltran’s motion to compel Defendant OAE to respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One); and Plaintiff Samuel Beltran’s motion to compel Defendant Diaz to respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One).  Plaintiffs request sanctions in each motion. 

Defendants filed oppositions on February 14, along with their own requests for sanctions. 

Plaintiffs filed replies on February 20, 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 2030.030 provides that the court may impose sanctions “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.”  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., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Discussion

Plaintiff Dora Alicia Beltran served each of Defendant OAE and Defendant Diaz with Form Interrogatories (Set One) on September 17, 2024.  (Renge Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.)

Plaintiff Samuel Beltran served each of Defendant OAE and Defendant Diaz with Form Interrogatories (Set One) on September 17, 2024.  (Renge Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.)

Defendants requested, and received, extensions of time to respond to October 25, 2024.  (Renge Decls., ¶ 4 & Exhs. B.)  But Plaintiffs still had not received responses to the discovery as of the time these motions were filed in late January 2025.  (Renge Decls., ¶ 5.)

In their oppositions, Defendants’ counsel states that the responses were in fact timely served by email on October 25, 2024, by email, but upon further investigation (after being served with these motions), counsel learned that the email service of the discovery responses had bounced back from the office of Plaintiffs’ counsel, and that the notification of the bounce back went into the spam folder of a secretary at the office of defense counsel; prior to service of these motions, neither defense counsel nor the secretary was aware of the bounce-back notification.  (Feroz Decls., ¶¶ 5-7.)

Adding further complexity, the Court has now reviewed the responses, provided by Plaintiffs with their replies.  (Renge Reply Decls., Exhs A.)  All four responses include a proof of service stating that they were served electronically on October 25, 2024.  But the responses of Diaz are not verified (as required), and none of the responses are signed by an attorney (as required when objections are asserted).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250.)

Plaintiff Dora Alicia Beltran’s Motion Against Defendant Diaz
Plaintiff Samuel Beltran’s Motion Against Defendant Diaz

This motions to compel are granted.  Although a response was served, it was not verified by the party.  That is required.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (a).)  “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; see also 2 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (2024), ¶ 8:1113.)

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted in part.  Defendant Diaz has unsuccessfully opposed a motion to compel.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)  The failure to serve a verified response is not substantially justified, and not other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  (Ibid.)

In light of the substantial number of motions that Plaintiffs have filed, and the economies of scale associated with filing multiple discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions in the amount of $375 for each motion, calculated based on 1.5 hours of attorney time multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $250 per hour.  (See Renge Decl., ¶ 7.)

Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.  There has been no misuse of the discovery process by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Dora Alicia Beltran’s Motion Against Defendant OAE
Plaintiff Samuel Beltran’s Motion Against Defendant OAE

These two motions are denied as moot.  Verified responses have been served.  If Plaintiffs contend that the responses are not code compliant, Plaintiffs may file motions to compel a further response under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 (after satisfying all applicable procedural requirements, including a meet-and-confer and an informal discovery conference).

(The Court notes that there is no signature from an attorney with these responses.  The Court does not decide whether the failure of an attorney to sign the responses waives the objections.)

Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions are denied.  Defendant OAE has not unsuccessfully opposed the motions to compel.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) 

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are denied.  Although Plaintiffs have unsuccessfully made motions to compel, under these circumstances the Court finds that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motions of Plaintiff Dora Alicia Beltran and Plaintiff Samuel Beltran as against Defendant Diaz.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Francisco Javier Diaz to serve verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff Dora Alicia Beltran’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Francisco Javier Diaz to serve verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff Samuel Beltran’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of notice.

The Court DENIES the motions of Plaintiff Dora Alicia Beltran and Plaintiff Samuel Beltran as against Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC.

The Court GRANTS in part the request for sanctions of Plaintiff Dora Alicia Beltran and Plaintiff Samuel Beltran as against Defendant Diaz.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Francisco Javier Diaz and counsel of record Zelms Erlich Lenkov & Mack, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $375 to Plaintiff Dora Alicia Beltran (through counsel) within 30 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Francisco Javier Diaz and counsel of record Zelms Erlich Lenkov & Mack, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $375 to Plaintiff Samuel Beltran (through counsel) within 30 days of notice.

The Court DENIES the other requests for sanctions by Plaintiffs.

The Court DENIES the requests for sanctions by Defendants.