Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: BC704528, Date: 2025-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC704528    Hearing Date: February 3, 2025    Dept: 29

Goetsch v. Parsi
BC704528
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set Five)

Tentative

The motion is granted.

The request for sanctions is denied.

Background

On April 30, 2018, Courtney Goetsch (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Alex A Parsi DDS (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 10.

On July 18, 2018, Defendant filed an answer.

On December 31, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Requests for Production (Set Five).

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

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 May 7, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff with Request for Production of Documents, Set Five. (Conley Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff did not serve responses. (Id., ¶ 4.)

Defendant need show nothing more.

The motion to compel is granted.

As for sanctions, in the chapter of the Civil Discovery Act governing 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., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, Plaintiff has not unsuccessfully opposed the motion, or opposed the motion at all.  Accordingly, the request for sanctions is denied.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Courtney Goetsch to serve code-compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Requests for Production (Set Five), within 10 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.