Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV29908, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV29908    Hearing Date: August 6, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Josue Ramirez to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Angel De Leon to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)

Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Esmirna Ramirez, Angel De Leon, and Josue Ramirez to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)

Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Esmirna Ramirez, Angel De Leon, and Josue Ramirez to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)

Tentative

The motions to compel are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

On December 7, 2023, Esmirna Ramirez, Angel De Leon, and Josue Ramirez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Olver Dewey (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 100 for motor vehicle negligence arising out of an accident occurring on May 15, 2022.

On January 29, 2024, Defendant filed an answer.

On June 25, 2024, Defendant filed these four motions to compel Plaintiffs to respond to discovery requests.  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

On March 4, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiffs Josue Ramirez and Angel De Leon with form interrogatories, and all Plaintiffs with special interrogatories and requests for production.  (Opfell Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.)  Plaintiffs have not responded to these discovery requests.  (Id., ¶ 6.)

Defendant need not show anything more.  The motions to compel Plaintiffs to respond to the form interrogatories, the special interrogatories, and the requests for production are GRANTED. 

The requests for sanctions in connection with the motions to compel responses to the interrogatories and requests for production are DENIED. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” but does not independently authorize sanctions for such conduct.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides for the imposition of sanctions against any party or attorney who engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title [the Civil Discovery Act].”  This section, itself, does not independently authorize sanctions.

In the chapters of the Civil Discovery Act governing interrogatories and requests for production, the Legislature has authorized sanctions in the context of a motion to compel initial responses “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” the motion to compel.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) & 2031.300, subd. (c).)  Here, however, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.  Accordingly, no sanctions are authorized.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant Oliver Dewey’s Motions to Compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Josue Ramirez to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 20 days of notice of this order.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Angel De Leon to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 20 days of notice of this order.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs Esmirna Ramirez, Angel De Leon, and Josue Ramirez to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 20 days of notice of this order.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs Esmirna Ramirez, Angel De Leon, and Josue Ramirez to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Requests for Production (Set One) within 20 days of notice of this order.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.