Judge Andre De La Cruz, Case 2022-01242384 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Andre De La Cruz, Case: 2022-01242384, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
2. Motion to Compel Production
3. Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions filed by Atlantic Solutions Group, Inc. on 4/10/23

Plaintiff Atlantic Solutions Group, Inc. dba Empire Workforce Solutions (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order: (1) compelling Defendant BaronHR West, Inc. (“Defendant”) to serve responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Requests for Production of Documents, Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories; (2) deeming the truth of all matters specified in Plaintiff’s first set of Requests for Admission as admitted; and (3) imposing monetary sanctions.

Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300 state that if a party to whom interrogatories or a demand for inspection “fails to serve a timely response to it,” the party waives any and all objections and the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the interrogatory or demand. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a)-(b), 2031.300(a)-(b).

These sections also state “the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion . . . 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.” Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(b) provides that, when a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission, “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” Subdivision (c) provides that the Court shall make this order, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”

Plaintiff served the written discovery on Defendant on January 20, 2023. Robinson Decls. ¶¶3-4, Exhs. 2-3 (interrogatories) and ¶3, Exh. 2 (RFPs, RFAs). Defendant requested an extension, but still failed to provide any responses either by the statutory deadline or its requested extended deadline of March 6, 2023. Robinson Decls. ¶¶5, 7, Exh. 4 (interrogatories) and ¶¶4, 6, Exh. 3 (RFPs, RFAs. As of the date of filing of the motions, Defendant had served no responses. Id.

However, in opposition to the motions, Defendant submits declarations indicating that responses were served on 8/1 and 8/11/23 (nearly four months after the motions were filed). In reply, Plaintiff takes issue with the responses because they include objections, which were waived. Plaintiff also contends that the responses are incomplete and that Defendant intentionally failed to respond to RFA No. 5.

The motions to compel requests for production and interrogatories are GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve complete verified responses without objections within 15 calendar days of notice of this ruling. No prefatory “general objections” shall be included in the responses.

The motion to deem the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s first set of Requests for Admission is DENIED.

The Court disagrees with Defendant that the omission of a response to RFA No. 5 was intentional. It appears that it was likely left out inadvertently. Furthermore, the motion must be denied where there is substantial compliance. Substantial compliance is determined by evaluating the response “in toto,” rather than based on responses to individual RFAs. St. Mary v. Sup.Ct. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 762, 779-780.

Sanctions of $1,400 are issued against Defendant BaronHR West, Inc. The amount represents 2 hours of attorney time at $700 per hour for preparing the motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production. Sanctions are due and payable to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 calendar days of this order.

Plaintiff to give notice.

N.B. Since Plaintiff did not cite to Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290 in its Notice of motion, the Court has no authority to order a response to RFA No. 5. Plaintiff only made a motion to deem matters admitted. See St. Mary v. Sup.Ct. (2014) 223 Cal. App.4th 762, 783 (court abused its discretion by misapplying section 2033.280 and effectively granting a motion under section 2033.290 that was never made).