Judge Christopher K. Lui, Case Number: 21STCV29022, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein. Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter. As required by Rule 3.1308(a), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.

Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to remedy uninhabitable conditions at the residence which Plaintiff rented.

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to form and special interrogatories and requests for production of documents, and to deem admitted requests for admission, as against Defendants Nadlan 3100 Bellevue LLC and R & E Management.

Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to form and special interrogatories and requests for production of documents, and to deem admitted requests for admission, as against Defendants Nadlan 3100 Bellevue LLC and R & E Management are MOOT by virtue of Defendants’ service of verified responses prior to the hearing on these motions. (See Combined Opposition, Declaration of Lanetta Rinehart, Exhs. 1 – 8.)

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though . . . the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.

Given the context--months of silence between the parties--the Court agrees that the instant motions likely could have been avoided if Plaintiff's counsel had simply called to inquire about the absent responses. The fact that the declaration of Plaintiff's counsel does not explain what happened during those months, nor what precipitated the instant motions, appears to illustrate a lack of professional courtesy. Civil discovery is designed to be a self-executing process in which the parties make a serious attempt to resolve their disputes before resorting to judicial intervention. (Clement v Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1281.) Thus, while the Court does not endorse Defendants' failure to respond to discovery, the Court expects all parties and counsel to avoid easily avoidable motions.

Although these motions are substantively moot, the Court may still determine whether sanctions are appropriate, since the responses were provided after the filing of the motion. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 410-11.) The Court notes that one of the motions at issue--the motion to deem requests for admission to be admitted--differs from the others with regard to sanctions.

On a motion to deem requests for admission to be admitted, “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) The inclusion of the word “mandatory” in Section 2033.280(c) distinguishes sanctions under this statute from sanctions for other forms of written discovery: there is no “safety valve” allowing a party against whom a motion is brought to avoid sanctions upon a finding of substantial justification.

With regard to the two motions to deem requests for admission to be admitted, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,000 against Defendant R & E Management only, and $1,000 against Defendant Nadlan 3100 Bellevue LLC only, as the notices of motion did not request sanctions against Defendant’s counsel. With regard to the other motions, the Court DENIES the requests for sanctions in furtherance of justice. Sanctions are to be paid within 30 days of this order.