Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 24STCV00089, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 24STCV00089, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00089 Hearing Date: September 30, 2024 Dept: 29

Lopez v. Castro
24STCV00089
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)

Tentative

The motions are granted.

Background

On January 3, 2024, Ramona Soto Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Michael Castro (“Castro”), Julianne Farias, David Ortiz, Sandra Ortiz, and Does 1 through 25 for negligence and negligent entrustment causes of action arising out of an incident in which, Plaintiff alleges, she was injured when she was struck by a vehicle driven by Castro while Plaintiff was walking in a crosswalk on November 17, 2023, at or near the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Portia Street in Los Angeles.

On April 11 and 12, 2024, each of the named defendants filed an answer.

On August 22, 2024, Castro filed the two motions that are before the Court and set for hearing on September 30: (1) a motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One); and (2) a motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Requests for Production (Set One). In each motion, Castro seeks sanctions.

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).)

Discussion

Castro served Plaintiff with form interrogatories and document requests April 12, 2024. (Van Wagner Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff requested and received three extensions of time to respond but still has not served any responses. (Id., ¶¶ 5-10.)

Castro need not show anything more.

The motions to compel are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied. The applicable provisions of the Civil Discovery Act provide for the imposition of sanctions “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, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition, and so has not unsuccessfully opposed the motion.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Ramona Soto Lopez to serve code-compliant, verified, written responses, without objection, to Defendant Michael Castro’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Ramona Soto Lopez to serve code-compliant, verified, written responses, without objection, to Defendant Michael Castro’s Requests for Production, Set One, within 15 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Defendant Michael Castro’s requests for monetary sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.