Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV12241, Date: 2025-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV12241    Hearing Date: April 16, 2025    Dept: 45

DIEGO ALVARADO-ALAS vs PHYLLIS LYNN WALKER

defendant phyllis lynn walker’s motions to compel further discovery

Date of Hearing:        April 16, 2025                                     Trial Date:       April 11, 2025

Department:              45                                                        Case No.:        24STCV12241

Moving Party:            Defendant Phyllis Lynn Walker

Responding Party:     Plaintiff Diego Alvarado-Alas

Meet and Confer:       Yes. (Stevens Decl. Exh. C.)

BACKGROUND

On May 14, 2024, Plaintiff Diego Alvarado-Alas filed a complaint against Defendant Phyllis Lynn Walker for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant Phyllis Lynn Walker’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED.

Defendant Phyllis Lynn Walker’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED.

Defendant Phyllis Lynn Walker’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED.

Defendant Phyllis Lynn Walker’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Initial Discovery Requests Pursuant to CCP 2016.090 (Set One) is GRANTED.

discussion

Defendant Phyllis Lynn Walker moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Deigo Alvarado-Alas to provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set one; Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Initial Discovery Requests.

The propounding party may file motions to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for production if it believes the responses received are (1) evasive, (2) incomplete, or (3) if the objections raised are meritless or overly general. (CCP §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a).) In response to a motion to compel further responses, the respondent bears the burden of justifying any objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) Moreover, a party’s obligations under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.090 may be enforced by a court on its own motion or the motion of a party to compel disclosure. (CCP §2016.090(a)(4).)

For each discovery request, Defendant argues Plaintiff provided boilerplate and meritless objections. Moreover, Plaintiff objects on the grounds of privilege but failed to provide a privilege log. The court notes Defendant did not submit a separate statement for each motion to compel. However, Plaintiff submitted identical objections to each and every discovery request. As such, the court will rule on the discovery motion.

The court finds the objections are without merit. Moreover, Defendant has shown good cause pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(b)(1). Plaintiff submitted objections to basic interrogatories like stating their name and other background information.

Plaintiff did not file an opposition, but did file an objection on April 7, 2025, stating that the order shortening time for these motions to be heard deprived him of due process.  The court on its own motion on February 4, 2025, advanced these motions to compel to April 16, 2025.  The motions had already been pending since August 15, 2024, more than 6 months at that time and were not set to be heard until May 23, 2025.  By advancing the hearing on the motions by 5 weeks, the court properly managed its calendar to ensure the efficient resolution of pending matters.  Plaintiff was given notice of the order advancing the hearing and had more than statutory notice to file an opposition.   Plaintiff was not denied due process by the court order, advancing this hearing.  

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Phyllis Lynn Walker’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED; Defendant Phyllis Lynn Walker’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED; Defendant Phyllis Lynn Walker’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED; and Defendant Phyllis Lynn Walker’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Initial Discovery Requests Pursuant to CCP 2016.090 (Set One) is GRANTED.

Sanctions

Defendant seeks $980 in sanctions per motion for 2.5 hours preparing the motion, .3 hours preparing declaration and 1.2 hours attending the hearing at counsel’s hourly rate of $230.00. Defendant also seeks $60 filing fee.

The court GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $805 for the first motion and $575 for each of the remaining three motions, payable within 30 days.