Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22STCV23868, Date: 2022-12-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23868    Hearing Date: December 30, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On July 25, 2022, Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for the Court to assign a case number in an uninsured motorist arbitration with Le Tuyet Dam (“Respondent”) relating to an October 25, 2019 automobile accident. Petitioner moves for an order compelling Respondent to serve responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, which Petitioner served on Respondent on April 28, 2021. The motion is set to be heard on December 30, 2022. Having reviewed Petitioner’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, the Court rules as follows.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          “Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party . . . .” (CCP § 2030.260(a).) The propounding party on a set of interrogatories may agree to extend the time for service beyond that 30 days. (CCP § 2030.270.) If the propounded party does not respond in the appropriate amount of time, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) Where a party fails to timely provide a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may compel a response to its interrogatories, CCP § 2030.290, without need to meet and confer with opposing counsel.¿¿(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants¿(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)¿Further, “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives . . . any¿objection¿to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . .¿.”¿¿(CCP § 2030.290.) 

            Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Also, “[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” and the motion must “be supported by a memorandum. . .and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanctions sought.”¿(CCP § 2023.040.)¿ 

III.      DISCUSSION

          On April 28, 2021, Petitioner served Form Interrogatories, Set One on Respondent. (Declaration of Barrett ¶ 3; Exhibit “A”.) Responses were due within 30 days of service.  On June 8, 2021 and January 20, 2022, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent requesting responses within 10 days of the date of said letters. (Id. ¶ 4; Exhibit “B”.) To this date, Petitioner has received no responses and no requests for extension. (Id. ¶ 5.) Petitioner now moves to compel Respondent’s responses. The Court Grants the motion pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(b) and orders Respondent to provide verified responses, without objections, to Petitioner’s Form Interrogatories, Set One within twenty (20) days of this ruling. While Petitioner asserts that Respondent’s failure to respond warrants monetary sanctions, Petitioner fails to identify against whom the monetary sanction is sought. (CCP § 2023.040.) Petitioner also fails to request an amount of monetary sanctions or provide a declaration with facts supporting the amount. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Court declines to award sanctions.

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Petitioner’s Motion for Order Compelling Respondent to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(b).

          The Court orders Respondent to provide verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set One within twenty (20) days of this ruling.

Moving party to give notice. 

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On July 25, 2022, Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for the Court to assign a case number in an uninsured motorist arbitration with Le Tuyet Dam (“Respondent”) relating to an October 25, 2019 automobile accident. Petitioner moves for an order compelling Respondent to serve responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, which Petitioner served on Respondent on April 28, 2021. The motion is set to be heard on December 30, 2022. Having reviewed Petitioner’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, the Court rules as follows.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          “Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party . . . .” (CCP § 2030.260(a).) The propounding party on a set of interrogatories may agree to extend the time for service beyond that 30 days. (CCP § 2030.270.) If the propounded party does not respond in the appropriate amount of time, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) Where a party fails to timely provide a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may compel a response to its interrogatories, CCP § 2030.290, without need to meet and confer with opposing counsel.¿¿(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants¿(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)¿Further, “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives . . . any¿objection¿to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . .¿.”¿¿(CCP § 2030.290.) 

            Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Also, “[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” and the motion must “be supported by a memorandum. . .and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanctions sought.”¿(CCP § 2023.040.)¿ 

III.      DISCUSSION

          On April 28, 2021, Petitioner served Special Interrogatories, Set One on  Respondent. (Declaration of Barrett ¶ 3; Exhibit “A”.) Responses were due within 30 days of service.  On June 8, 2021 and January 20, 2022, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent requesting responses within 10 days of the date of said letters. (Id. ¶ 4; Exhibit “B”.) To this date, Petitioner has received no responses and no requests for extension. (Id. ¶ 5.) Petitioner now moves to compel Respondent’s responses. The Court GRANTS the motion pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(b) and orders Respondent to provide verified responses to the interrogatories compliant with CCP §§ 2030.210(a) and 2030.220 without objection within twenty (20) days of this ruling. While Petitioner asserts that Respondent’s failure to respond warrants monetary sanctions, Petitioner fails to identify against whom the monetary sanction is sought. (CCP § 2023.040.) Petitioner also fails to request an amount of monetary sanctions or provide a declaration with facts supporting the amount. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Court declines to award sanctions.

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Petitioner’s Motion for Order Compelling Respondent to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(b).

          The Court orders Respondent to provide verified responses to Petitioner’s Special Interrogatories, Set One compliant with CCP §§ 2030.210(a) and 2030.220 without objection within twenty (20) days of this ruling.

Moving party to give notice. 

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On July 25, 2022, Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for the Court to assign a case number in an uninsured motorist arbitration with Le Tuyet Dam (“Respondent”) relating to an October 25, 2019 automobile accident. Petitioner moves for an order compelling Respondent to serve responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, which Petitioner served on Respondent on April 28, 2021. The motion is set to be heard on December 30, 2022. Having reviewed Petitioner’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses Request for Production, the Court rules as follows.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          “Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand . . . .” (CCP § 2031.260(a).) The party demanding inspection, copying, testing, or sampling and the responding party may agree to extend the time for service beyond that 30 days. (CCP § 2031.270.) The demanding party may seek an order compelling a response when there has not been a timely response to the request for production. (CCP § 2031.300.) Further, “[t]he party to whom the demand…is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection of work product . . . .” (CCP § 2031.300).)

            Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Also, “[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” and the motion must “be supported by a memorandum. . .and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanctions sought.”¿(CCP § 2023.040.)¿ 

III.      DISCUSSION

          On April 28, 2021, Petitioner served a Request for Production of Documents, Set One on Respondent. (Declaration of Barrett ¶ 3; “Exhibit “A”.) Responses were due within 30 days of service.  On June 8, 2021 and January 20, 2022, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent requesting responses within 10 days of the date of said letters. (Id. ¶ 4; Exhibit “B”.) To this date, Petitioner has received no responses and no requests for extension. (Id. ¶ 5.) Petitioner now moves to compel responses. The Court Grants the motion pursuant to CCP § 2031.300 and orders Respondent to provide verified responses pursuant to CCP §  2031.210 and to product the documents without objection within twenty (20) days of this ruling. While Petitioner asserts that Respondent’s failure to respond warrants monetary sanctions, Petitioner fails to identify against whom the monetary sanction is sought. (CCP § 2023.040.) Petitioner also fails to request an amount of monetary sanctions or provide a declaration with facts supporting the amount. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Court declines to award sanctions.

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Petitioner’s Motion for Order Compelling Respondent to Respond to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2031.300.

          The Court orders Respondent to provide verified responses to Petitioner’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One and to produce the responsive documents without objection within twenty (20) days of this ruling. Moving party to give notice. 

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.