Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV01713, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV01713    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Numero Uno Acquisitions, LLC’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Ana Luz Anguiano’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents; Defendant Numero Uno Acquisitions, LLC’s Request to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On January 15, 2021, Plaintiff Ana Luz Anguiano (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Numero Uno Ranch Market, Inc. (“Market”). Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Numero Uno Acquisitions, LLC (“Acquisitions”).

On August 1, 2022, Acquisitions filed an answer. On September 29, 2022, the Court dismissed Market, without prejudice.

On February 8, 2023, Acquisitions filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production and Motion to Deem RFA’s Admitted to be heard on May 9, 2023. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to May 23, 2023. On May 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

Trial is currently scheduled for August 15, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Acquisitions requests the Court order Plaintiff to provide responses to the request for production, and that the Court deem the requests for admissions admitted. Acquisitions also request sanctions totaling $732.50 across both motions.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motions. Plaintiff does not oppose sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300, “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” According to CCP § 2030.260, for a response to interrogatories to be timely, it must be served within 30 days of service. CCP § 2031.260 provides the same 30-day deadline for request for production responses.

CCP § 2023.030(a) provides that “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” According to CCP §2023.010(d), misuse of the discovery process includes “failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

CCP § 2033.220 provides the following: “(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.”

Under CCP § 2033.280, a party who fails to serve timely responses to requests for admissions waives any objections to the requests, including those based on privilege. Upon failure to serve a timely response, a requesting party can move for a court order that the truth of

the matter specified in the requests be deemed admitted. CCP § 2033.280(c) states “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. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”

DISCUSSION

Discovery

At the previous hearing on the motion, the Court issued a tentative ruling granting the motions. Plaintiff's counsel appeared at the hearing and indicated that they had served verified discovery responses on that day. Acquisitions’ counsel stated he did not have time to review the discovery responses prior to the hearing.

Plaintiff submitted an opposition that included copies of the verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories and request for production. The responses to the interrogatories are irrelevant to the motions before the Court. The Court issued rulings on the motions to compel interrogatories on May 8, 2023. Plaintiff did not appear for or contest the rulings. Plaintiff did not serve these responses until the day after the Court issued a ruling on those motions. Therefore, the Court will not consider the interrogatories.

The Court acknowledges that the responses to the request for documents are verified and without objections. Should Acquisitions take any issue with these responses, the proper means would be via a Motion to Compel Further. This motion is deemed moot.

Plaintiff did not submit a copy of responses to the Request for Admissions. The Court is unable to confirm that responses were verified, without objection or even served on Acquisitions. The Court grants the motion to deem the admissions admitted, unless Plaintiff appears before the Court with a copy of said responses.

Sanctions

Defendants are entitled to reasonable sanctions due to Plaintiff’s misuse of the discovery process in failing to provide timely, completed discovery responses. Acquisitions requests

monetary sanctions totaling $732.50. The Court awards sanctions pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.030 (a), Code of Civ. Proc. § 2033.280 (c) and Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (c) in the amount of $525.00, calculated as follows:

Defendant requests $732.50 across both motions based 4.5 hours of attorney’s work, at a rate of $135.00 per hour, and 2 $60.00 filling fees. Attorney’s work is based on 3 hours drafting and 1.5 hours attending the hearing. The Court notes that the motions are substantially similar, unopposed and set to be heard concurrently. The Court grants sanctions totaling $525.00, based on 3 hours of attorney’s work.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Numero Uno Acquisitions, LLC’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Ana Luz Anguiano’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents is MOOT.

Defendant Numero Uno Acquisitions, LLC’s Request to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED. The request for admissions is deemed admitted.

Defendant Numero Uno Acquisitions, LLC’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay Acquisitions $525.00 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.