Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV02090, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV02090 Hearing Date: July 3, 2024 Dept: 52
Plaintiff
Lusine Boyajyan’s Motions: (1) to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; (2)
to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories; (3) to Compel Responses to
Requests to Inspect and Copy and (4) for Order Deeming Matters Admitted
Motions
to Compel Discovery Responses
Plaintiff
Lusine Boyajyan moves to compel defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC to respond to form
interrogatories – general, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and
demands for inspection and copying, set one.
When
a party fails to serve a timely response 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].) The responding party
also waives any objections. (CCP §§
2030.290(a); 2031.300(a).)
Plaintiff served these discovery requests on
defendant on February 29, 2024. (Aslanian
Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant had not served
responses as of May 2, when plaintiff filed these motions. (Id., ¶ 5.)
Defendant filed oppositions requesting to continue
the hearings by 60 to 75 days to “investigate the status of the discovery in
this case and present all relevant facts to the Court.” Plaintiff filed the motions on May 2. Defendant had over six weeks to “investigate”
before filing the oppositions on June 20.
Defendant had enough time to make a substantive opposition.
Defendant did not timely respond to plaintiff’s form
interrogatories, special interrogatories, or demands to inspect and copy
documents. Plaintiff is therefore
entitled to an order compelling defendant to serve verified responses without
objections to these discovery requests.
Motion
for Order Establishing Admissions
Plaintiff moves for an order deeming
admitted the truth of the matters specified in requests for admission, set one,
to defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC.
When a party fails
to serve a timely response to requests for admission, “[t]he 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, as well as for a
monetary sanction.” (CCP §
2033.280(b).) “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.” (Id., subd. (c).)
Plaintiff served requests for admission, set one, on
defendant on February 29, 2024.
(Aslanian Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant
had not served responses as of May 2, when plaintiff filed these motions. (Id., ¶ 5.)
Defendant did not timely respond to the requests for
admissions. Defendant’s opposition does
not show it served proposed responses before this hearing. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order deeming admitted the truth of the
matters specified in the requests.
Sanctions
On
each motion, plaintiff moves for $1,986.65 in sanctions against defendant
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and its counsel of record, Clark Hill LLP and Vanessa
Dao. Failing to respond to an authorized
method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process subject to monetary
sanctions. (CCP § 2023.010(d).) The Civil Discovery Act provides, “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 demands 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) [demands for
inspection].)
Defendant
unsuccessfully opposed plaintiff’s motions.
It did not act with substantial justification. Sanctions are just under the
circumstances. Defendant asserts, “Without
disclosing private information, the attorney handling the discovery and motions
in this case has recently taken a leave of absence and has not been in
communication with the Firm. Accordingly,
we have been unable to discuss the facts of the preparation and service of
discovery with the handling attorney.”
(Hom Decl., ¶ 2.)
One attorney’s absence does not justify failing to
respond to discovery. The captions on defendant’s
oppositions list the names of four attorneys at Clark Hill LLP representing
defendant. The proofs of service on plaintiff’s
discovery requests show plaintiff served them on “mbusa@clarkhill.com” and the
email addresses of eight employees of Clark Hill LLP. Other attorneys could have stepped in to
cover for the absent attorney.
Moreover, on a motion to deem matters admitted,
there is no exception to sanctions based on substantial justification or for
other circumstances. “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).)
The court finds plaintiff reasonably incurred all
expenses claimed.
Disposition
Plaintiff Lusine
Boyajyan’s motion to compel defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, to
respond to form interrogatories – general is granted. Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is ordered
to serve verified responses to form
interrogatories – general, set one, without objections within 30 days. Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and
its counsel Clark Hill LLP are ordered to pay plaintiff
$1,986.65 in sanctions within 30 days.
Plaintiff Lusine
Boyajyan’s motion to compel defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, to
respond to special interrogatories is granted. Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is ordered
to serve verified responses to special
interrogatories, set one, without objections within 30 days. Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and
its counsel Clark Hill LLP are ordered to pay plaintiff
$1,986.65 in sanctions within 30 days.
Plaintiff Lusine
Boyajyan’s motion to compel defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, to
respond to demands for inspection and copying is granted. Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is ordered
to serve verified responses to demands
for inspection and copying, set one, without objections within 30 days. Defendant is further ordered to produce all responsive documents concurrently with the written
responses. Defendant Mercedes-Benz
USA, LLC and its counsel Clark Hill LLP are ordered to pay plaintiff $1,986.65 in sanctions within 30 days.
Plaintiff Lusine
Boyajyan’s motion for an order establishing the truth of the
matters specified in requests for admission to defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
is granted. The truth of
the matters specified in plaintiff’s request for admissions, set one, to defendant
are hereby deemed admitted. Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and
its counsel Clark Hill LLP are ordered to pay plaintiff
$1,986.65 in sanctions within 30 days.
Defendant
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and its counsel, Clark Hill LLP, are jointly and
severally liable for all sanctions.