Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV47061, Date: 2024-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47061    Hearing Date: May 15, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

 Defendant MHE Enterprises, Inc. (“Defendant”) now moves for an order compelling Requests for Admission, Set One and Form Interrogatories, Set Two propounded on Plaintiff Fatoumata Doukoure (“Plaintiff”). Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies.

LEGAL STANDARD

Requests for Admission

Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.010, the propounding 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.¿ (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)¿ The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants that party relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.¿ (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)¿ The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “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.”¿ (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)¿ 

Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t 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).) 

Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290 (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 (a)(1), (a)(2).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served and no meet and confer is required when a party does not respond to discovery requests. 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. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)  

If a motion to compel responses is filed, the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “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).) Further, “[t]he 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a). 

DISCUSSION

Here, Defendant asserts that it served Requests for Admission, Set One and Form Interrogatories, Set Two on Plaintiff on November 29, 2023. (Page Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) The responses were due on December 29, 2023. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff did not respond to the discovery. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts she served verified responses on April 29, 2024. In reply, Defendant does not dispute that verified responses were served. Any arguments that the responses are in some way deficient are suited for a motion to compel further (and not a motion to compel initial). Therefore, the motion to compel is denied as moot.[1]

Defendant requests $1,462.50 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, representing an hourly rate of $165 and the $60.00 filing fee. Though Plaintiff argues sanctions should not be imposed due to Defendant’s changing stance that it owned the subject property, this does not explain why discovery responses were not timely served. Therefore, the Court finds sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff failed to timely respond. However, the amount requested is excessive due to the type of motion at issue and the fact counsel can appear remotely at the hearing. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $472.50 (2.5 hours of attorney time, plus the $60 filing fee).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel Requests for Admissions, Set One and Form Interrogatories, Set Two is DENIED.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $472.50. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days of the date of this order. 

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.