Judge Armen Tamzarian, Case 21STCV22319 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Hector Jr. Beltani and Breeana Linn Odell’s Motions (1) To Compel Defendant Ronald Pescador to Serve Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production; and (2) To Deem Admitted Matters Specified in Requests for Admission to Ronald Pescador

Plaintiffs Hector Jr. Beltani and Breeana Linn Odell move to compel defendant Ronald Pescador to serve responses to form interrogatories – general, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and requests for production, set one.

When a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories or demands for inspection, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses. (CCP §§ 2030.290(b) [interrogatories]; 2031.300(b) [demands for inspection].) Failure to timely respond waives any objections. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a); 2031.300(a).)

It is undisputed that Pescador served untimely responses to plaintiffs’ discovery requests. But those responses include objections. Each response begins with eight general objections. (Mojarro Decl., Ex. 3, pp. 1-2 [form interrogatories]; Ex. 4, pp. 2-3 [special interrogatories]; Ex. 5, pp. 1-2 [requests for production].)

Moreover, some of Pescador’s responses include objections—though he does not use the word “objection.” For example, his response to special interrogatory No. 39 begins, “This interrogatory is vague ambiguous, and calls for unfounded speculation beyond the scope of a reasonable discovery request.” (Mojarro Decl., Ex. 4, p. 16.) Pescador’s response to No. 65 states, “This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and argumentative, and asks for Responding Party to make legal conclusions beyond the scope of a proper discovery request.” (Id., p. 25.) The response to No. 70 begins, “This interrogatory is repetitive, burdensome, and oppressive in asking a question already answered.” (Id., p. 26.) Those are objections. Because Pescador did not timely respond, he waived all objections. Plaintiffs are entitled to an order compelling responses without objections.

Plaintiffs move for $4,885 in sanctions on this motion. Monetary sanctions are mandatory against a successfully a party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel responses. (CCP §§ 2030.290(c); 2031.300(c).) Defendant Pescador unsuccessfully oppose this motion. The court finds he did not act with substantial justification and sanctions are just under the circumstances.

The court finds, however, that plaintiffs did not reasonably incur $4,885 in expenses. That amount includes 13 hours of attorney fees at $365 hourly. This simple motion did not reasonably require 13 hours of work. Plaintiffs’ two motions also shared some overlapping work. The court finds plaintiffs reasonably incurred 7 hours of attorney fees at $365 hourly, plus the $140 in other costs, for a total of $2,695.

Defendant Ronald Pescador is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to form interrogatories – general, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and requests for production, set one, within 20 days.

Defendant Ronald Pescador is ordered to pay plaintiffs Hector Jr. Beltani and Breeana Linn Odell $2,695 in sanctions within 20 days.

Plaintiffs Hector Jr. Beltani and Breeana Linn Odell move for an order deeming the truth of matters specified in request for admissions, set one, to Ronald Pescador admitted. When a party fails to respond to requests for admission, 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. (CCP § 2033.280(b).) Failure to timely respond to requests for admission also waives any objection. (CCP § 2033.280(a).)

An order deeming matters admitted is mandatory “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.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

As with the other discovery requests, it is undisputed that defendant Pescador did not timely respond. He did, however, serve a proposed response that is in substantial compliance with the Discovery Act. Though the response includes general objections (Mojarro Decl. Ex. 2, pp. 2-3), which he waived, the response still substantially complies. The responses to each request at least partially admit or deny the matters specified. Even if not fully compliant, Pescador’s response is in “substantial” compliance. The court therefore cannot issue an order deeming the matters admitted.

Plaintiffs move for $4,885 in sanctions against Pescador. “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction … on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).) Pescador’s failure to serve a timely response to plaintiffs’ requests necessitated this motion. Sanctions are mandatory.

The court finds, however, that plaintiffs did not reasonably incur $4,885 in expenses. That amount includes 13 hours of attorney fees at $365 hourly. This straightforward motion did not reasonably require 13 hours of work. The court finds plaintiffs reasonably incurred 8 hours of attorney fees at $365 hourly, plus the $140 in other costs, for a total of $3,060.

Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part as to sanctions. Defendant Ronald Pescador is ordered to pay plaintiffs Hector Jr. Beltani and Breeana Linn Odell $3,060 in sanctions within 20 days.