Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 24STCV11514, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 24STCV11514    Hearing Date: October 8, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

Plaintiff Martha Banuelos (Banuelos) sues Defendants Oscar Miranda (Miranda), Timothy Horen (Horen), and Does 1 through 10, pursuant to a May 7, 2024, Complaint alleging  causes of action for: (1) Breach of Settlement Agreement; (2) Trespass; (3) Private Nuisance; and (4) Injunctive Relief.

On June 10, 2024, Miranda and Horen each filed Cross-Complaints against Banuelos also alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Settlement Agreement; (2) Trespass; (3) Private Nuisance; and (4) Injunctive Relief.

Plaintiff and Defendants are next-door neighbors with a history of mutual accusations of harassment and trespassing, as well as prior litigation. The claims in the current action arise from allegations that both parties have breached the terms of a Settlement Agreement reached in the prior litigation and continue to engage in harassing and trespassory conduct.

B. Motion Before the Court

On July 8, 2024, Banuelos propounded Request for Production of Documents, Set One (RFPs), Special Interrogatories, Set One (SROGs), Form Interrogatories, Set One (FROGs), and Request for Admissions, Set One (RFAs) on Miranda and Horen (All Motions, Exs. A and B.) According to the proofs of service, the discovery was served on Miranda and Horen via mail on July 8, 2024.) (All Motions, Proof of Service.)

On August 29, 2024, Banuelos filed the instant motions: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to RFP, Set One and Request for Sanctions; (2) Motion to Compel Responses to SROGs, Set One and Request for Sanctions; (3) Motion to Compel Responses to FROGs, Set One and Request for Sanctions; and (4) Motion for Order Deeming RFAs Admitted, and Request for Sanctions.

On September 20, 2024, Defendants filed oppositions to all four motions.

On October 1, 2024, Banuelos replied.

II. Motion

A. Legal Standard

A motion to compel an initial response can be made on the ground that a party did not serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand to produce. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (a) [demand to produce]; see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 (Sinaiko).)

The discovering party can make a motion to deem as admitted any unanswered requests for admission or any requests answered in a late or unverified response. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a) [RFA responses must be signed by responding party under oath]; see Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [unsworn response to RFAs is treated like no response].) These requests are not automatically deemed admitted; the discovery party must make the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

To establish this ground, a movant must show: 

(1) Proper service (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.080, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.040 [demand to produce], 2033.070 [admissions].); 

(2) Expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after service or on date agreed to by parties (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subds. (a), (b) [interrogatories], 2031.260, subds. (a), (b) [demand to produce], 2033.250, subds. (a), (b) [admissions].); and 

(3) No timely response (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 [interrogatories], 2031.300 [demand to produce], 2033.280, subd. (b) [admissions]).

The Court retains jurisdiction to rule on the merits of discovery motions even after requested discovery was provided after the motion was filed. (Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 409.)

B. Analysis

Here, the motions were served via mail on Miranda and Horen on July 8, 2024. (All Motions, Proof of Service.) The deadline to respond was 30 days after service, plus five days for service via mail (Code Civ. Proc. § 1013 subd. (a).) Thus, responses were due on August 12, 2024. As of the date of the hearings on these motions, there is no evidence before the Court that Miranda or Horen has served the requested discovery responses. 

In opposition, Defendants assert that they did not receive the discovery requests until they received the motions to compel, the Settlement Agreement between the parties includes a ‘Covenant Not to Sue’ clause, the discovery requests are duplicative, cumulative and burdensome, the discovery requests seek privileged information, and the motions to compel are procedurally defective because they were not timely and not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. Defendants request that monetary sanctions be issued against Banuelos and her counsel.

First, the proofs of service on file with the Court for the discovery requests are facially valid. However, if Defendants did not actually receive the discovery requests until August 29, 2024, then responses were due on October 3, 2024. As of the date of the hearings on these motions, there is no evidence before the Court that Defendants have served the requested discovery responses. 

Second, if Defendants believe that discovery requests are improper or privileged, they may assert their objections in their discovery responses, including a privilege log as applicable. However, they cannot disregard the discovery requests entirely.  The Court has reviewed the underlying document requests, special and form interrogatories, and requests for admissions, and they appear on their face to be reasonably related to the parties’ dispute, including the complaint and cross complaints.

Third, Defendants’ contention that the discovery requests are duplicative due to their previous responses in a prior litigation does not relieve them of their obligation to respond to discovery in the current action.

Finally, Banuelos’s motions to compel are not procedurally defective. Defendants’ discovery responses were due on August 12, 2024. There is no deadline for making a motion to compel initial discovery responses or deem requests (RFA) admitted. (See Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1584; Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 406.) The discovering party should make the motion as soon as possible after the deadline to respond and before the cutoff for discovery motions. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020 [cutoff for hearings on discovery motions is 15 days before the date set for trial]. A motion to compel an initial response should be filed and served at least 16 court days before the date set for the hearing plus any additional days for method of service. (Code Civ. Proc., 1005, subd. (b).)

Banuelos served the motions to compel on August 29, 2024, well in advance of 16 court days before the hearing. Finally, there is no meet and confer requirement for motions to compel initial responses. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280 [no meet and confer mentioned for motion to compel initial responses to interrogatories, production requests, or motion to deem RFAs admitted].)

As to the RFAs, the Court is bound by the specific language of the statute. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: … The requesting 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... 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subs. (b), (c), paragraph breaks omitted.) As no such proposed response has been submitted, the motion is granted.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, General, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s motion for order deeming Requests for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED.

III. Request for Sanctions

The Court must impose monetary sanctions against anyone—party, nonparty, or attorney—who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion, unless it finds that the person to be sanctioned acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand to produce]; see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404 [interrogatories and demand to produce].)

The Court must award sanctions when a party’s response to request for admissions is untimely, and the discovering party makes a motion to deem the requests admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); see Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 19, 31-32; see e.g., Appleton v. Superior Court, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at pp. 635-636 [sanctions are mandatory].)

The 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, subd. (a).)

Even after a party provides discovery responses, a party can keep its motion on calendar and the court has authority to grant sanctions, even if it denies the motion to compel responses “as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part.” (Sinaiko, supra, at p. 409.)

            Banuelos requests sanctions for the motion to compel discovery responses (RFPs) against Defendants Miranda and Horen, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $911.65 based upon counsel’s rate of $425/hour for: (1) 1.0 hour drafting this motion and declaration, (2) 1.0 hour to review the opposition, draft a reply, and attend the hearing on the motion, and (3) filing fees of $61.65.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the total amount of $911.65.

Banuelos requests sanctions for the motion to compel discovery responses (SROGs) against Defendants Miranda and Horen, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $911.65 based upon counsel’s rate of $425/hour for: (1) 1.0 hour drafting this motion and declaration, (2) 1.0 hour to review the opposition, draft a reply, and attend the hearing on the motion, and (3) filing fees of $61.65. Because the time spent to attend the hearing on this motion is duplicative of the time for the other motions, a reduction of 0.5 hours is appropriate.

            The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $699.15.

Banuelos requests sanctions for the motion to compel discovery responses (FROGs) against Defendants Miranda and Horen, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $911.65 based upon counsel’s rate of $425/hour for: (1) 1.0 hour drafting this motion and declaration, (2) 1.0 hour to review the opposition, draft a reply, and attend the hearing on the motion, and (3) filing fees of $61.65. Because the time spent to attend the hearing on this motion is duplicative of the time for the other motions, a reduction of 0.5 hours is appropriate.

            The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $699.15.

Banuelos requests sanctions for the motion to compel discovery responses (RFAs) against Defendants Miranda and Horen, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $911.65 based upon counsel’s rate of $425/hour for: (1) 1.0 hour drafting this motion and declaration, (2) 1.0 hour to review the opposition, draft a reply, and attend the hearing on the motion, and (3) filing fees of $61.65. Because the time spent to attend the hearing on this motion is duplicative of the time for the other motions, a reduction of 0.5 hours is appropriate.

            The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $699.15. 

IV. Conclusion

The Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Request for Sanctions [RES ID # 5272] is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to serve fully compliant responses without objections within 20 days. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $911.65.

The Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions [RES ID # 5632] is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to serve fully compliant responses without objections within 20 days. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $699.15.

The Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions [RES ID # 8984] is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to serve fully compliant responses without objections within 20 days. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $699.15.

The Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts, and Request for Sanctions [RES ID # 5038] is GRANTED. The facts are deemed ADMITTED as truth. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $699.15.