Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV20355, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20355    Hearing Date: May 30, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Williams to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Williams to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Williams to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)

Tentative

The motions to compel are denied as moot.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

These two consolidated cases arise out of a motor vehicle accident on May 26, 2023, at or near the intersection of Broadway and Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles.

On August 24, 2023, in Case No. 23STCV20355, Francisco Hitabarada filed a complaint for negligence against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (“LACMTA”), E. Cuchilla, and Does 1 through 25.  LACMTA filed an answer on October 10, 2023.

On October 4, 2023, in Case No. 23STCV24175, Noah Williams (“Williams”) filed a complaint against LACMTA and Does 1 through 10 for motor vehicle negligence.  LACMTA filed an answer on November 8, 2023.

The two cases were related on December 7, 2023, and consolidated on April 12, 2024.

As it relates to the matters currently before the Court and set for hearing on May 30, LACMTA served Plaintiff Williams with written discovery on November 7, 2023, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).  (Sheppard Decls., ¶ 5 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff did not respond to the discovery.  (Id., ¶ 7.)

On April 18, 2024, LACMTA filed these three motions to compel.  LACMTA also seeks sanctions. 

Plaintiff Williams served responses to the discovery on or about May 7.  (Yeager Decl., ¶ 2.)  Williams filed a consolidated reply to all three motions on May 8.

LACMTA filed three reply briefs on May 14.

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).)

Discussion

On November 7, 2023, LACMTA served Plaintiff Williams with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).  (Sheppard Decls., ¶ 5 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff did not serve timely responses to these discovery requests.  (Id., ¶ 7.)  Indeed, Plaintiff did not respond to the discovery until after this motion was filed.  (Yeager Decl., ¶ 2.)

But Plaintiff has now responded.  Accordingly, the motions to compel initial responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production are denied as moot.

LACMTA’s requests for sanctions are also denied.  The applicable statutes authorize sanctions in this context against a party or attorney “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” the motion to compel an initial response.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) & 2031.300, subd. (c).)  In other contexts within the Civil Discovery Act, the Legislature has not imposed this requirement for sanctions.  (E.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  But the requirement does apply here – and here, Plaintiff has not unsuccessfully opposed the motions.   

Conclusion

The Court DENIES AS MOOT LACMTA’s three motions to compel.

The Court DENIES LACMTA’s requests for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.