Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV22368, Date: 2024-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 23STCV22368    Hearing Date: June 5, 2024    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Michael Morris-Nussbaum’s Six Motions to Compel Discovery Responses and Two Motions to Deem Matters Admitted

            Plaintiff Michael Norris-Nussbaum moves to compel each defendant, Hyundai Motor America, Inc. and Mission Hills-H, Inc., to serve responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production.  Plaintiff further moves for an order deeming admitted the matters specified in requests for admission against each defendant.

            All eight motions are defective.  Motions to compel responses and motions to deem matters admitted are only proper when the responding party “fails to serve a timely response.”  (CCP §§ 2030.290 [interrogatories], 2031.300 [requests for production], 2033.280 [requests for admission].)  Plaintiff’s motions acknowledge defendants timely served responses to these discovery requests.  (Ostoia Decls., ¶¶ 6-8, Ex. 3.)  The responses were only objections.  Defendants therefore did not have to verify them under oath.  (CCP §§ 2030.250(a), 2031.250(a), 2033.240(a).)  Ordering defendants to provide substantive responses without objections would require moving to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure section sections 2030.300, 2031.310, and 2033.290.  These are the wrong motions. 

As to compelling further responses, plaintiff’s motions are defective because they do not include separate statements.  “Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement.  The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: (1) To compel further responses to requests for admission; (2) To compel further responses to interrogatories; (3) To compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).)  Plaintiff did not submit the required separate statements including the contents of each disputed request and response.

These motions are also defective as to compelling further responses because they are untimely.  Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be served within 45 days of the responses.  (CCP §§ 2030.300(c) [interrogatories], 2031.310(c) [requests for production], 2033.290(c) [requests for admission].)  Defendants served their responses on January 23, 2024.  (Ostoia Decls., ¶ 8, Ex. 3.)  Plaintiff served these motions on April 15, 83 days later.

Sanctions

            In their oppositions to all eight motions, defendants move for sanctions against plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel.  “The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to [interrogatories or a demand for inspection], 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.”  (CCP §§ 2030.290(c) [interrogatories], 2031.300(c) [requests for production].)  “The court may also impose [a monetary] sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both.”  (CCP § 2023.030(a).)

Sanctions are appropriate.  Plaintiff unsuccessfully moved to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production.  As to the requests for admission, plaintiff unsuccessfully moved for sanctions against defendants on the grounds that they engaged in misuse of the discovery process.  Plaintiff did not act with substantial justification.  Plaintiff’s eight motions are all defective in three different ways.  Sanctions are just under the circumstances.  Defendants reasonably incurred the expenses they seek via their oppositions.

Disposition

            Plaintiff Michael Morris-Nussbaum’s motion to compel defendant Hyundai Motor America, Inc. to respond to form interrogatories is denied.  Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel Adina A. Ostoia are ordered to pay defendant Hyundai Motor America, Inc. $280.15 in sanctions within 20 days.

            Plaintiff Michael Morris-Nussbaum’s motion to compel defendant Hyundai Motor America, Inc. to respond to special interrogatories is denied.  Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel Adina A. Ostoia are ordered to pay defendant Hyundai Motor America, Inc. $440.15 in sanctions within 20 days.

            Plaintiff Michael Morris-Nussbaum’s motion to compel defendant Hyundai Motor America, Inc. to respond to requests for production is denied.  Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel Adina A. Ostoia are ordered to pay defendant Hyundai Motor America, Inc. $420.15 in sanctions within 20 days.

            Plaintiff Michael Morris-Nussbaum’s motion to deem matters admitted against defendant Hyundai Motor America, Inc. is denied.  Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel Adina A. Ostoia are ordered to pay defendant Hyundai Motor America, Inc. $880.15 in sanctions within 20 days.

Plaintiff Michael Morris-Nussbaum’s motion to compel defendant Mission Hills-H, Inc. to respond to form interrogatories is denied.  Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel Adina A. Ostoia are ordered to pay defendant Mission Hills-H, Inc. $340.15 in sanctions within 20 days.

            Plaintiff Michael Morris-Nussbaum’s motion to compel defendant Mission Hills-H, Inc. to respond to special interrogatories is denied.  Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel Adina A. Ostoia are ordered to pay defendant Mission Hills-H, Inc. $440.15 in sanctions within 20 days.

            Plaintiff Michael Morris-Nussbaum’s motion to compel defendant Mission Hills-H, Inc. to respond to requests for production is denied.  Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel Adina A. Ostoia are ordered to pay defendant Mission Hills-H, Inc. $300.15 in sanctions within 20 days.

            Plaintiff Michael Morris-Nussbaum’s motion to deem matters admitted against defendant Mission Hills-H, Inc. is denied.  Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel Adina A. Ostoia are ordered to pay defendant Mission Hills-H, Inc. $400.15 in sanctions within 20 days.

            Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel are jointly and severally liable for all sanctions.