Judge Andrew E. Cooper, Case Number: 23CHCV00413, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

APRIL 10, 2024

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 23CHCV00413

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Moving Defendant”)

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling Plaintiff’s responses to Moving Defendant’s first set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”); Form Interrogatories; Requests for Admission (“RFAs”); and Special Interrogatories. Defendant further requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel in the combined amount of $5,740.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motions are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Moving Defendant’s first set of discovery requests within 20 days. Moving Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $810.00.

This is a premises liability action in which Plaintiff alleges that on 2/13/21, he was injured as a result of a slip and fall at a retail property owned and operated by Defendants. (Compl. p. 4.)

On 2/10/23, Plaintiff filed his complaint, alleging against defendants Costco Wholesale Corporation; Costco Membership, Inc.; and Property Owners of 13550 Paxton St., Pacoima CA 91331 the following causes of action: (1) Premises Liability; (2) General Negligence; and (3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

On 7/14/23, Moving Defendant served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff. On 1/18/24, Moving Defendant filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses thereto. No oppositions have been filed to date.[1]

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to a request for production of documents if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300, subd. (b); 2031.260, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to interrogatories if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2030.260, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

A propounding party may move for an order deeming the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.280, subd. (b); 2033.250, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “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.” (Id. at subd. (c).)

Here, as Moving Defendant electronically served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff on 7/14/23, the last day for Plaintiff to respond was 8/16/23. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) To date, Plaintiff has not provided responses to Moving Defendant’s discovery requests. (Decl. of Brian Skalsky ¶ 9.) The Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to oppose the instant motions. Accordingly, the Court grants the instant unopposed motions to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to the subject discovery requests.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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, subd. (c).)

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Additionally, “the 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Here, Moving Defendant requests $1,435.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel for each of the four motions, in a total sum of $5,740.00. This amount includes (1) 3.5 hours of Moving Defendant’s attorney’s time spent preparing each motion; and (2) an anticipated 2 hours drafting each reply and appearing at each of the hearings, at counsel’s hourly rate of $250.00 per hour. (Skalsky Decl. ¶ 10.) Moving Defendant also seeks to recover $60.00 in filing fees per motion. (Ibid.)

In granting the instant motions, the Court finds it reasonable to award Moving Defendant sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel in the total amount of $810.00.

The unopposed motions are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Moving Defendant’s first set of discovery requests within 10 days. Moving Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $810.00.

[1] The Court notes that on 4/5/24, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration stating that he electronically served Moving Defendant with Plaintiff’s discovery responses on the same date. To the extent that this declaration serves as Plaintiff’s opposition to the instant motions, the Court declines to consider them as untimely. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005, subd. (b).)