Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22VECV00233, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV00233    Hearing Date: September 6, 2022    Dept: W

STEVEN ROTH v. CESAR FERNANDO TORRES, et al.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Date of Hearing: September 6, 2022,                        Trial Date: October 9, 2023

Department: W                                                                 Case No.: 22VECV00233               

Moving Party: Plaintiff Steven Roth

Responding Party: None

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action. Plaintiff Steven Roth alleges he entered into a Contractor Agreement with Defendant Cesar Fernando Torres on December 15, 2020. Under the contract, Defendant was to repaint the exterior wood window frames and sills for Plaintiff’s home in exchange for $3,500.00. Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached the contract by failing to protect the glass on the windows as agreed, failing to perform the work in “a good workmanlike manner”, badly scratching many of the glass windowpanes when cleaning paint and materials from the windows after they were painted, and leaving visible brush strokes on two gates and failing to touch up the third gate.

On February 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, (3) fraudulent inducement, and (4) unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

Plaintiff now moves for court orders compelling Defendant to serve responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents.

[TENTATIVE] RULING

 1. Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents are GRANTED.

 2. Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work produce. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45- day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.)

DISCUSSION

Compel Responses

Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents on Defendant on May 3, 2022. (Roth Decls., ¶ 2, Exs. A.) Responses were due June 7, 2022. (Id., ¶ 3.) Defendant did not request and Plaintiff did not provide any extensions. (Id., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff has not received any responses to the discovery requests. (Id., ¶ 5.)

As Plaintiff properly served the discovery requests on Defendant and Defendant has failed to serve responses, Plaintiff is entitled to court orders compelling Defendant to serve verified responses without objections to the subject discovery requests.

Accordingly, the motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents are granted.

Defendant Cesar Fernando Torres is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One within 20 days of notice of this order.

Sanctions

Although not set forth in the notices of motion, Plaintiff cites to authority regarding the imposition of sanctions in the moving papers and requests monetary sanctions “as the court deems appropriate” in his declaration submitted in support of each motion to compel. (Roth Decls., ¶ 7.)

“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) “The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Id.)

Plaintiff has failed to comply with CCP section 2023.040. As noted, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions was not made in the notice of motion. Plaintiff has thus failed to identify the person against whom the sanction is sought and specify the type of sanction sought in the notice of motion. Plaintiff has also failed to identify the amount of sanctions sought, as well as provide support for that amount.

Accordingly, the requests for monetary sanctions are denied.