Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV23139, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23139    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff Susan Mizrahi to respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One)

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff Amnon Mizrahi to respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One)

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff Susan Mizrahi to respond to Requests for Production (Set One)

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff Amnon Mizrahi to respond to Requests for Production (Set One)

Tentative

The motions are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

This case arises out of an accident that occurred on November 10, 2021.  According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs Amnon Mizrahi and Susan Mizrahi (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) were injured when they were struck by their improperly secured vehicle after it rolled off a flat bed tow truck.  (Complaint, ¶¶ 10-23.)

On September 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this action against Carmel Towing & Transport, Inc.; Bert’s Garage, Inc.; Automobile Club of Southern California (“AAA”), and Does 1 through 25.  Plaintiffs assert causes of actions for premises liability; negligence; vicarious liability; and loss of consortium.  

AAA filed its Answer to the Complaint on October 17, 2023.

On November 30, 2023, AAA served discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One) to each of the Plaintiffs; Special Interrogatories (Set One) to each of the Plaintiffs; and Requests for Production (Set One) to each of the Plaintiffs.  (Harwood Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A-B.)  Plaintiffs did not respond to these discovery requests.  (Id., ¶ 5.)

On March 4, 2024, AAA filed these motions to compel.  AAA also seeks sanctions.

Plaintiffs have not filed any oppositions to any of these motions.

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 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., § 2023.020, subd. (a).)

Discussion

Defendant AAA served each of the Plaintiffs with form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production on November 30, 2023.  (Harwood Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A-B.)  Neither Plaintiff has responded to any of these discovery requests.  (Id., ¶ 5.)

AAA need not show anything more.  The motions to compel are GRANTED.

AAA’s requests for sanctions are denied.

Defendants seek sanctions under section 2030.290, subdivision (c); section 2031.300, subdivision (c); and section 2023.030. 

Section 2030.290, subdivision (c), and section 2031.300, subdivision (c), authorize an award of sanctions against a party or attorney “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” a motion to compel initial responses.  Here, no opposition was filed, and so no award of sanctions is authorized under these provisions. 

Section 2023.030 does “not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery.”  (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504.)  (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 in the City of Los Angeles case to be persuasive.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS AAA’s motions to compel Plaintiff to provide initial responses to the discovery requests.

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

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

The Court DENIES AAA’s requests for sanctions.

Moving party to give notice.