Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV27904, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27904    Hearing Date: June 14, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One) 

Tentative

The motions are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

On November 14, 2023, Maria Del Carmen Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against El Pollo Loco, Inc. (“Defendant”), and Does 1 through 100 for negligence and premises liability arising out of a slip and fall on August 29, 2023, at location on North Alvarado Street in Los Angeles.

On December 11, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.  On the same day, Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).  (Glazer Decls., ¶ 3-4 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiff requested, and Defendant granted, several extensions, but still Plaintiff provided no responses.  (Id., ¶¶ 5-13.) 

On April 22, 2024, Defendant filed these three motions to compel initial responses.  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 discovery on December 11, 2023, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).  (Glazer Decls., ¶ 3-4 & Exhs. A.)  Despite receiving several extensions, Plaintiff Plaintiff never responded.  (Id., ¶¶ 5-13.) 

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

The Court denies the sanctions requests in the three motions to compel. 

Defendant seeks sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, 2023.030, 2030.290, 2031.300.

Section 2023.010 defines “misuses of the discovery process” but does not contain an authorization for the imposition of sanctions.

Section 2023.030 provides for sanctions for the misuse of the discovery process “[t]o the extent authorized by any chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title [the Civil Discovery Act].”  In other words, section 2023.030 does not contain an independent authorization or sanctions but provides for the type of sanctions that may be imposed when authorized elsewhere in the Civil Discovery Act.

Sections 2030.290 and 2031.300 authorize sanctions against a party, person, or attorney “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel.”  Here, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and therefore is not subject to sanctions under these provisions. 

The Court notes that other provisions of the Civil Discovery Act provide for sanctions even in the absence of an unsuccessful motion or opposition.  (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.450, subd. (g)(1) & 2033.280, subd. (c).)  For the motions to compel at issue here, however, the Legislature has provided for sanctions only upon an unsuccessful motion or opposition.

Accordingly, in the absence of a statutory authorization for sanctions, the requests for sanctions are denied.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s the motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Maria Del Carmen Rodriguez to serve code-compliant, verified, written responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 15 days of notice of this Order.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Maria Del Carmen Rodriguez to serve code-compliant, verified, written responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 15 days of notice of this Order.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Maria Del Carmen Rodriguez to serve code-compliant, verified, written responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Requests for Production (Set One) within 15 days of notice of this Order.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.