Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV18651, Date: 2024-06-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18651    Hearing Date: June 24, 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

 Defendants Lithia Motors, Inc., LAD-P, LLC, and Michael Presley (“Defendants”) now move 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 Kyairra Johnson (“Plaintiff”). Defendants also seek monetary sanctions. Plaintiff opposes and Defendants reply.

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).)¿ 

The Discovery Act does not define “substantial compliance” in the context of service of a proposed response that complies with Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.220. The courts have ruled that “substantial compliance” means actual compliance with all matters of substance and that technical deviations are not to be given the stature of noncompliance. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779.) For example, unverified responses are not in substantial compliance. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Additionally, RFA responses must be examined in their entirety. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 780.)  

Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all, and are subject to a motion to compel responses (rather than a motion to compel further responses).¿ (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.)¿ However, objections to discovery responses do not require a verification. (See Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 656.)  

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, Defendants assert that they served Requests for Admission, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One on Plaintiff on January 10, 2024. (Ruddell Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Defendants granted an extension, and the responses were due March 14, 2024. (Id. ¶ 4–5.) No responses were provided by March 14, 2024. (Id. ¶ 4.) On April 8, 2024, Defendants’ counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that if objection-free responses were not served by April 12, 2024, they would seek Court intervention. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s counsel responded on April 11, 2024 that they would serve responses by the end of the following week. However, Plaintiff’s counsel did not confirm the responses would be without objections. (Id., Exh. B.) As a result, Defendants filed these motions.

On June 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed an omnibus opposition to the instant motions asserting that code compliant responses to the discovery were served on June 12, 2024.[1] (Gill Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) As a result, Plaintiff contends the motions are moot. Plaintiff also asks that sanctions not be imposed since the late responses were not willful, but the result of Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to calendar the due date. (Opp., 7; Gill Decl. ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff did not provide copies of the responses to the Request for Admissions. Therefore, the Court cannot determine if the responses are in substantial compliance. In reply, Defendants argue the responses are deficient and also contain objections.

To the extent Plaintiff moves for relief from the waiver of objections in opposition, the Court will only consider granting such relief through a separately noticed motion. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from waiver of objections on June 12, 2024, set for October 10, 2024.

Therefore, because it is not apparent from the papers that Plaintiff served substantially compliant responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, the motion to deem admitted is granted.

In reply, Defendants assert that the remaining discovery responses contain objections, which is improper since the responses were late.[2] As a result, they ask the Court to grant the motions and order responses without objections.  “[T]he service of an untimely interrogatory response, which may or may not reflect a good faith effort to comply with the party's discovery obligations, does not divest the trial court of authority to hear and grant a motion to compel responses under section 2030.290, subdivision (b). Whether the trial court should proceed with a motion to compel responses under section 2030.290 when there has been an untimely interrogatory response is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 395.)

With regard to the remaining discovery requests, Defendants do not appear to assert that the responses are deficient, other than by containing objections. Accordingly, the parties appear to agree that the responses are substantially compliant (other than containing objections). As Plaintiff has filed a motion for relief from waiver of objections, and in light of the parties’ apparent agreement, the Court denies the motion to compel initial responses as moot, even though Plaintiff has not provided copies of the responses for the Court’s review.

Defendants request $1,700 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record for the deem admitted motion, representing an hourly rate of $340. Since it is undisputed that Plaintiff provided untimely responses to Request for Admissions, monetary sanctions are mandatory. However, the amount requested is excessive due to the type of motion at issue. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,020 (3 hours of total attorney time to file the motion, reply, and appear at the hearing).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendants Lithia Motors, Inc., LAD-P, LLC, and Michael Presley’s Motion to deem admitted Request for Admissions, Set One is GRANTED. Defendants’ Motions to Compel Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One are DENIED. 

The Court further GRANTS Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $1,020. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Defendants within 30 days of the date of this order.

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