Sarmago v. Mundra et al.		CASE NO. 114CV261523
DATE: 8 August 2014	TIME: 9:00	LINE NUMBER: 16

This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.882.2310 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 7 July 2014.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 8 August 2014, the motion of Defendants Jaswant Mundra and Sanjeev Mundrea to compel responses to requests for production of documents and interrogatories, and for monetary sanctions[1] was argued and submitted.

Plaintiff Duane Sarmago did not file formal opposition to the motion.[2]

Background

This case arises out of a personal injury due to an automobile accident. Plaintiff Duane Sarmago alleges that on 24 March 2012, Defendant, while driving his vehicle, negligently hit Plaintiff’s vehicle, causing injury to Plaintiff. Defendants assert several affirmative defenses in their answer.

On 11 April 2014, Defendant served discovery, including Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for the Production of Documents on Plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to respond to this discovery. On 11 June 2014, Defendant’s counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel demanding discovery responses within 7 days. Plaintiff failed to respond.

On 11 July 2014, Defendant served the instant motion to compel responses to interrogatories and demands for production of documents.

Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories

A demand to produce documents may be propounded upon an adverse party in an attempt to seek relevant information. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.010. Absent an extension granted by counsel, a party must respond to each request for the production of documents within 30 days, unless the propounding party grants an extension. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260. A code-compliant response states that the responding party will comply fully, comply partially while stating a valid reason for not fully complying, or that party will not comply while stating a valid reason for not fully complying. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.220; Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230. A party may seek a motion to compel production when the adverse party fails to respond to the request for production in a timely fashion. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).

A demand to answer interrogatories may be propounded upon an adverse party. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.010. Absent an extension granted by counsel, a party must respond to each interrogatory within 30 days, unless the propounding party grants an extension. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.260. A party making an untimely response waives all objections in that response. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.290(a). A code-compliant response must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the party permits. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.220. If a party lacks personal knowledge to provide complete information, that party shall so state, but shall also make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain such information. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.220(c). A party may seek a motion to compel responses when the adverse party fails to respond to the demand within the timeframe specified by statute or extension. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.290(a).

When making a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or demands to produce, there is no obligation upon any party to meet and confer. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2d Dist. 2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404. See Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.290(b), 2031.300(b) (no mention of a requirement to meet and confer); cf. Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2).[3]

On 11 April 2014, Defendants served, by mail, Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Sets One and Two, and Requests for Production of Documents, Sets One and Two on Plaintiff.[4] As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not served responses to any of this discovery. An order to compel responses is appropriate.

As a result, Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Sets One and Two, and Requests for Production of Documents, Sets One and Two is GRANTED. Plaintiff Duane Sarmago shall serve verified, code-compliant responses on Defendant without objection within 20 days of the date of this order.

Request for Monetary Sanctions

Defendants make a request for monetary sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel.  The request is not code-compliant.

Defendants cite, in the notice of motion, Rule of Court 3.1345[5] and Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2016.040, 2023.010(d), 2030.220(c), 2030.2300[6] and 2031.300(b).  In the memorandum of points and authorities,  Defendants cite Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2023.010, 2023.030, 2030.290(c) and 2030.300(c).

Section 2023.010 defines acts that constitute misuses of the discovery process, and does not itself set forth any provisions regarding the issuance of a monetary sanction.

Next, section 2023.030 provides that sanctions may be imposed for misuses of the discovery process “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.”  As such, section 2023.030 does not provide an independent basis for an award of sanctions and thus is not self-executing.  In other words, to invoke section 2023.030 as a basis for sanctions, the moving party must first be authorized to seek sanctions under the provisions in the Civil Discovery Act applicable to the discovery requests at issue.

Section 2030.290(c) addresses sanctions when a party fails to make a timely response to interrogatories. Section 2031.300(c) similarly addresses sanctions when a party fails to make a timely response to demands for production of documents. Both of these sections state that a monetary sanction is appropriate when a party is unsuccessful in filing or opposing a motion.

However, when no opposition papers are filed, the proper source of authority for monetary sanctions is Rule of Court 3.1348(a).

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

In the future, counsel would be advised to add the following language in the notice of your motion: “If you wish to oppose the relief requested in this motion, you must timely file a written reply in compliance with all Court rules.  If you fail to do so, the court may treat your failure to respond as a waiver of your right to oppose this motion and may grant the relief requested pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1348(a).

Conclusion and Order

Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Sets One and Two, and Requests for Production of Documents, Sets One and Two is GRANTED. Plaintiff Duane Sarmago shall serve verified, code-compliant responses on Defendant without objection within 20 days of the date of this order.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

 

 

________________­­­____________ DATED:

_________________________­­­________________________ HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County of Santa Clara