Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV18607, Date: 2024-07-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18607    Hearing Date: July 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 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority  (“Defendant”) now moves for an order to deem admitted Requests for Admission, Set One and to compel verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One propounded on Plaintiff Robert Frausto Acevedo (“Plaintiff”). No opposition has been filed.

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). 

Requests for Production 

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.300, if a party fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Code Civ. Pro § 2031.300 (b).) The party who fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand unless the court finds that the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance or party’s failure was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (a)(1)- (2).)  

Courts shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection unless the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (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, Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One on Plaintiff’s counsel, Albert Abkarian, on September 11, 2023. (Pluma Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Defendant granted an extension until December 11, 2023. No responses were served.

On March 27, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s (Albert Abkarian) motion to be relieved effective upon filing proof of service of the final order.[1] (Min. Order, 3/27/24.) The order was signed on April 3, 2024. However, no proof of service of the Order appears in the Court’s docket.

Defendant does not address this procedural history in the motion but has served notice of the motions by mail on Plaintiff’s address provided in the Order.

Plaintiff has not responded and has not filed an opposition to this motion. (Pluma Decl. ¶ 5.) However, because Plaintiff’s counsel has not served the proof of service of the Order Relieving Counsel, the Court concludes that Albert Abkarian is still the counsel of record for Plaintiff, and therefore needed notice of the instant motions.

Therefore, the motion to deem admitted and motions to compel are denied as procedurally defective.  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to establish Request for Admissions, Set One admitted is denied without prejudice. Defendant’s Motions to Compel Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One are DENIED without prejudice. 

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