Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV00370, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00370    Hearing Date: September 6, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Robert Morehead (“Plaintiff”) propounded form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for production of documents (“RPDs”), and request for admissions (“RFAs”), all set one, on Defendant City of Los Angeles (the “City”) on October 27, 2021.  Plaintiff asserts that as of filing the motions, the City had not served responses.  Plaintiff therefore sought an order compelling the City to respond, without objections, to the outstanding interrogatories and RPDs, deeming the RFAs admitted, and imposing sanctions.

This matter was last set for hearing on August 9, 2022, whereafter the City filed an untimely opposition, the hearing was continued to allow Plaintiff to file a reply. 

The City, in opposition, asserts that it never received Plaintiff’s discovery requests or Plaintiff’s instant motions and that it learned of the subject discovery issues for the first time on August 2, 2022.  The City’s counsel provides that the electronically served motions and discovery may have inadvertently been directed to defense counsel’s spam folder, which automatically deletes emails after 30 days.  The City avers that upon learning of these matters, it promptly served responses to the discovery requests on August 3, 2022.  The City argues that the motions are thus moot and requests relief from its waiver of objections. 

In reply, Plaintiff asserts that the subject discovery was served nearly one year ago, and that the parties have regularly communicated through email without issue.  Plaintiff further argues the City’s responses are improperly riddled with objections, and that the City’s responses are unverified. 

            However, as to Plaintiff’s assertion that the City’s responses were unverified, the evidence submitted by the City shows that on August 3, 2022, the City served verified responses on Plaintiff.  (Opp. Exh. B.)  Plaintiff does not provide any explanation as to why these verifications are invalid.  To the extent that Plaintiff contends the responses are inadequate, Plaintiff must move to compel further responses to the subject discovery.  Similarly, to the extent the City asks for relief from the waiver of its objections, the City must file a motion/s establishing it is entitled to the requested relief.  (See generally CCP § 2030.290(a) [“The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver…”].)  The City does not cite any authority showing that the Court is permitted to grant this relief in connection with an opposition to motions to compel discovery. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the motions to compel and deem RFAs admitted are moot in light of the responses served on Plaintiff prior to the hearing.  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.) 

Sanctions are mandatory unless the Court finds that the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).)  The City argues that sanctions should not be imposed because Plaintiff did not meet and confer prior to filing these motions.  Although Plaintiff was not required to meet and confer, the Court encourages the parties to meet and confer prior to seeking judicial intervention, and a conference may have obviated the need for this motion in this case.  The Court, thus, awards Plaintiff a portion of its requested fees one half hour for preparing each form motion [one and a half hours total] and a half hour to appear at the hearing - all at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour, for a total of $400 in attorney’s fees.  Further, the court awards Plaintiff three motion filing fees of $60, or $180 total, as costs. 

Sanctions are sought and imposed the City and the City’s attorney of record, jointly and severally.  They are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $580.00, within twenty days.

            As a final note, the court realizes that Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories is actually two motions combined into one: (a) motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and (b) motion to compel special interrogatories, set one.  In the future, moving party is ordered to obtain separate hearing reservations and pay separate filing fees.  Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants.  Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

Be that as it may, in the absence of any objection by the City and lack of any showing of prejudice, the court will exercise its discretion to hear both motions, but the above orders will not become effective until moving party pays an additional $60 in filing fees (1 motions filing fees not paid for x $60 filing fee). 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 6^th day of September 2022