Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV25455, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25455    Hearing Date: October 30, 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

            On October 18, 2023, Plaintiff Brett Baker (“Plaintiff” or “Baker”) filed an action against Defendants Express Delivery Service LLC[1] (“Express”), Rubnell Gaitan (“Gaitan”), and Does 1 through 25 (collectively, “Defendants”) for motor vehicle and general negligence, arising out of an alleged motor vehicle accident that took place on February 3, 2022.

            On July 17, 2024, Defendants filed an Answer.

            On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel discovery responses of Defendant Express, set for hearing on October 30, 2024:

1)     Motion to Deem All Request for Admissions Admitted, or in the Alternative, to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions, and Request for Sanctions (“MTD”);

2)     Motion to Compel Responses and Documents to Request for Production of Documents and Things (Set One), and Request for Sanctions (“MTC RFP”);

3)     Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, and Request for Sanctions (“MTCI”).

Plaintiff also filed the following motions as to Defendant Gaitan, set for hearing on October 31, 2024:

1)     Motion to Deem All Request for Admissions Admitted, or in the Alternative, to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions, and Request for Sanctions;

2)     Motion to Compel Responses and Documents to Request for Production of Documents and Things (Set One), and Request for Sanctions;

3)     Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, and Request for Sanctions.

On October 17 and 18, 2024, Defendants Express and Gaitan filed Oppositions to the Motions.  Plaintiff filed Replies on October 22, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

1. Requests for Admission

Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 2033.280, subdivision (b), failure to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner allows the requesting party to “move for an order that…the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted” by the party that failed to respond.  The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court, “unless [the court] 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 Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Since such motion is in response to failure to respond, there is no requirement to meet and confer prior to moving to deem the requests for admission admitted.  (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007), 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)  By failing to timely respond, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product.  (Code Civ. Pro. § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

2. Interrogatories

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).)  If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  Once compelled to respond, the party waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (a).)  There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290.)  No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

3. Requests for Production

A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260, subd. (a).)  If a party to whom requests for production of documents is directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (c).)  The party also waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2031.300.)  No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

4. Monetary Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone because of that conduct.  Misuse of discovery includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (d)).

Courts are obligated to impose monetary sanctions in cases where a “failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (d).)  Sanctions are calculated based on “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”  (Ibid. § 2023.030, subd. (a)).

Furthermore, sections 2030.290 and 2031.300 authorize the Court to impose monetary sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel” interrogatories or requests for production “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), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff’s counsel Shantel Yaghoobian declares that on July 17, 2024, she sent an email to Defendant Express’s counsel with the following discovery requests: Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production of Documents and Things (Set One), and Request for Admissions (Set One).  (MTD - Yaghoobian Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A; MTC RFP – Yaghoobian Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A; MTCI – Yaghoobian Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A.)  Defendant Express failed to provide responses by the August 16, 2024, deadline.  (MTD - Yaghoobian Decl. ¶ 5; MTC RFP – Yaghoobian Decl. ¶ 5; MTCI – Yaghoobian Decl. ¶ 5.)  Defendant also failed to provide responses or objections after Plaintiff extended the deadline.  (MTD - Yaghoobian Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; MTC RFP – Yaghoobian Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; MTCI – Yaghoobian Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.)  Counsel Yaghoobian attempted to meet and confer with defense counsel by sending a letter regarding Defendant’s failure to respond to the discovery requests; however, she did not receive a response.  (MTD - Yaghoobian Decl. ¶¶ 9-12; MTC RFP – Yaghoobian Decl. ¶¶ 9-12; MTCI – Yaghoobian Decl. ¶¶ 9-12.)  Counsel Yaghoobian’s hourly rate is $550 per hour and Plaintiff requests $500 in monetary sanctions for filing each motion.  (MTD - Yaghoobian Decl. ¶¶ 14-15; MTC RFP – Yaghoobian Decl. ¶¶ 14-15; MTCI – Yaghoobian Decl. ¶¶ 14-15.)

            In their oppositions, Defendants state that they have prepared responses to the discovery requests; however, verification is pending, and the responses have not been served.  Defendant Express will provide verified responses to the Requests for Admission (Set One), Request for Production (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One) prior to the hearings. 

            In his replies to the oppositions, Plaintiff argues that Defendants have impermissibly combined the oppositions to the separate motions.  Moreover, Defendants concede that they have failed to provide discovery responses and claim that responses will be provided before the hearings.  As of October 22, 2024, Defendant Gaitan has served unverified responses to the discovery requests, but Defendant Express has not served any responses to the discovery requests.  Plaintiff also argues that sanctions are warranted as there is no justification for Defendants’ failure to provide verified responses to the outstanding discovery requests.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has propounded discovery requests on Defendants.  No verified responses have been provided to the Court for review. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions.

The Court further finds that monetary sanctions are warranted for the discovery abuse, and awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $500 for each motion. The Court notes that although the declaration of counsel requests an hourly rate of $550 for three hours of time, this amount was not requested in the notice of motion. Accordingly, the amount awarded is limited to $500, which was sought in the notice.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Plaintiff Brett Baker’s Motion to Deem All Request for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses and Documents to Request for Production of Documents and Things (Set One) is GRANTED.  Defendant Express Delivery Service LLC is ordered to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents and Things (Set One) within 10 days of the Court’s order.

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories is GRANTED.  Defendant Express Delivery Service LLC is ordered to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of the Court’s order.

            Furthermore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $500 as to each motion, for a total of $1,500 in sanctions.  Defendant Express Delivery Service LLC and its counsel are ordered to pay monetary sanctions, jointly and severally, within 30 days of the Court’s order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.