Case Number: 19STCV01126 Hearing Date: October 30, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

On January 14, 2019, Plaintiffs Karen Espinoza, Estate of Foster, and Ana Foster filed a complaint against Defendants Commercial Cartage Inc. and Does 1 to 25 for motor vehicle and general negligence arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 12, 2017.

On September 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to complaint, substituting in Jorge Alberto Hernandez for Doe 1.

On September 26, 2019, Defendants Commercial Cartage, Inc. (“Commercial Cartage”) and Jorge Alberto Hernandez (“Hernandez”) (collectively “Defendants”) filed the instant motion to compel responses.

Trial is set for July 13, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendants request that the Court issue an order compelling Plaintiffs Estate of Foster and Ana Foster (collectively “Plaintiffs”) to provide responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One).

Defendants also request a court order imposing $844.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and their attorney of record.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “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.”

DISCUSSION

Defendants served Plaintiffs with Request for Production of Documents (Set One) on May 15, 2019. (Campo Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) After receiving no responses, Defendants’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel on September 15, 2019, advising Plaintiffs’ counsel that no responses had been received and requesting responses without objections. (Id., ¶ 3.) To date, Defendants have not received Plaintiffs’ responses. (Id., ¶ 4.)

The Court notes that Defendant Hernandez was not a party to this action at the time he served his discovery requests on Plaintiffs. Defendant Hernandez was thus not entitled to seek discovery on Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs were not required to respond. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010(a) (“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” (emphasis added).) Because he was not a defendant at the time the requests for production were served on Plaintiffs, Defendant Hernandez is thus not entitled to an order directing Plaintiffs to provide responses to the Request for Production of Documents (Set One) served on Plaintiffs on May 15, 2019.

As for Defendant Commercial Cartage, the discovery requests were properly served on Plaintiffs who failed to serve responses. The Court thus finds that Defendant Commercial Cartage is entitled to an order directing Plaintiffs to provide responses to the discovery requests served on Plaintiffs.

Defendants request $844.00 ($160/hr x 4.9 hrs, plus $60.00 filing fee) in monetary sanctions. (Campo Decl., ¶ 5.) As Defendant Hernandez is not entitled to an order directing Plaintiffs to provide responses to discovery requests, Defendant Hernandez is not entitled to monetary sanctions. While Defendant Commercial Cartage is entitled to monetary sanctions, the Court finds the requested amount to be excessive given the motion is relatively basic and unopposed. The Court thus awards monetary sanctions to Defendant Commercial Cartage in a total amount of $540.00 ($160/hr x 3 hrs, plus $60.00 filing fee).

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Defendant Commercial Cartage, Inc. and DENIED as to Defendant Jorge Alberto Hernandez.

The Court orders Plaintiffs Estate of Foster and Ana Foster to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant Commercial Cartage, Inc.’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) within 20 days of this order.

The Court also orders Plaintiffs and counsel Michael Shemtoub to pay Defendant Commercial Cartage, Inc., jointly and severally, monetary sanctions in the total amount of $540.00, within 30 days of this order.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Motion to Compel Responses to Special and Form Interrogatories

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

On January 14, 2019, Plaintiffs Karen Espinoza, Estate of Foster, and Ana Foster filed a complaint against Defendants Commercial Cartage Inc. and Does 1 to 25 for motor vehicle and general negligence arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 12, 2017.

On September 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to complaint, substituting in Jorge Alberto Hernandez for Doe 1.

On September 26, 2019, Defendants Commercial Cartage, Inc. (“Commercial Cartage”) and Jorge Alberto Hernandez (“Hernandez”) (collectively “Defendants”) filed the instant motion to compel responses.

Trial is set for July 13, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendants request a court order compelling Plaintiffs Estate of Foster and Ana Foster (collectively “Plaintiffs”) to provide responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Form Interrogatories.

Defendants also request a court order imposing $844.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and their attorney of record.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “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.”

DISCUSSION

Defendants served Plaintiffs with Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Form Interrogatories (Set One) on May 15, 2019. (Campo Decl., ¶¶ 2, Exs. A, B.) After receiving no responses, Defendants’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel on September 13, 2019, advising Plaintiffs’ counsel that no responses had been received and requesting responses without objections. (Id., ¶ 4.) To date, Defendants have not received Plaintiffs’ responses. (Id., ¶ 6.)

The Court notes that Defendant Hernandez was not named as a defendant to this action at the time he served his discovery requests on Plaintiffs. Defendant Hernandez was thus not entitled to seek discovery on Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs were not required to respond. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020(a) (“A defendant may propound interrogatories to a party to the action without leave to court at any time.” (emphasis added).) Because he was not a defendant at the time the interrogatories were served on Plaintiffs, Defendant Hernandez is not entitled to an order directing Plaintiffs to provide responses to the Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Form Interrogatories (Set One) served on Plaintiffs on May 15, 2019.

As for Defendant Commercial Cartage, the discovery requests were properly served on Plaintiffs who failed to serve responses. The Court thus finds that Defendant Commercial Cartage is entitled to an order directing Plaintiffs to provide responses to the discovery requests served on Plaintiffs.

Defendants request $844.00 ($160/hr x 4.9 hrs, plus $60.00 filing fee) in monetary sanctions. (Campo Decl., ¶ 7.) As Defendant Hernandez is not entitled to an order directing Plaintiffs to provide responses to discovery requests, Defendant Hernandez is not entitled to monetary sanctions. While Defendant Commercial Cartage is entitled to monetary sanctions, the Court finds the requested amount to be excessive given the motion is relatively basic and unopposed. The Court thus awards monetary sanctions to Defendant Commercial Cartage in a total amount of $540.00 ($160/hr x 3 hrs, plus $60.00 filing fee).

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to Defendant Commercial Cartage, Inc. and DENIED as to Defendant Jorge Alberto Hernandez.

The Court orders Plaintiffs Estate of Foster and Ana Foster to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendant Commercial Cartage, Inc.’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 20 days of this order.

The Court also orders Plaintiffs and counsel Michael Shemtoub to pay Defendant Commercial Cartage, Inc., jointly and severally, monetary sanctions in the total amount of $540.00, within 30 days of this order.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.