Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 24STCV05897, Date: 2025-06-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV05897    Hearing Date: June 13, 2025    Dept: 76

The following tentative ruling is issued pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1308 at 11:21 AM on June 12, 2025. 

Notice of intent to appear is REQUIRED pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1).  The Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein. 

As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(1), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 by 4:00 p.m. on June 12, 2025.

Notice to Department 76 should be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org, with opposing parties copied on the email.  The high volume of telephone calls to Department 76 may delay the Court’s receipt of notice, so telephonic notice to 213-830-0776 should be reserved for situations where parties are unable to give notice by email.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, the Court may not entertain oral argument if notice of intention to appear is not given.

Plaintiff Cesar Cotto moves for orders compelling Defendant MMD, Inc. (“Defendant”) to provide further responses, without objections, to his first set of Form Interrogatories and first set of Requests for Admissions.  In opposition to the motion, Defendant contends that it its initial responses were timely, but that it served amended responses to the disputed discovery to resolve the dispute.

Legal Standard:  Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions

A party responding to requests for admissions must give answers that are “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220(a).)  Each answer must:  (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; and (3) specify the portion of the request as to which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220(b).)  When the responding party asserts that its lack of information is a reason for its failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, the party must state in its answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the subject of the request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is not sufficient to enable the responding party to admit the matter.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220(c).)

When a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admissions, that party waives any objections to the requests, including privilege and work product protections.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280.)  The court may, on motion, relieve a party from waiver of objections if the court finds that the party (1) subsequently served a response in substantial compliance with the other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure; and (2) failed to make timely response due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).)

A propounding party not satisfied with the responses may bring a motion to compel further responses if it contends that either or both of the following apply:  (1) an answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete, or (2) an objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.  (CCP § 2033.290(a).)

As the Court of Appeal has observed, “California courts have recognized that requests for admission differ in purpose from other commonly used discovery devices, such as interrogatories, document demands, or depositions.[]  Although the requests for  admission mechanism is included in the Civil Discovery Act (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.010 et seq.), it has long been recognized that requests for admission are “’not really a discovery procedure.’”  (City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Assocs. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 344, 352 (internal footnote and citations omitted).)  The primary purpose of requests for admissions is “to set at rest triable issues so that they will not have to be tried; they are aimed at expediting trial.”  (Id. at 353.)  Thus, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 provides that a propounding party may be entitled to recover costs of proof at trial if the responding party denies a request.  (Id.)

Legal Standard—Motion to Compel Further Response to Interrogatories

Section 2030.220(a) requires responses to each interrogatory "to the extent possible" which are "as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available" to the responding party.  Section 2030.230 further requires that: “[i]f the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained.  This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.”  (Emphasis added.) 

When a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, that party waives the right to exercise the option under Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 to produce writings in lieu of substantive response, and also waives any objection to the interrogatories, including privilege and work product protections.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290.)  The court may, on motion, relieve a party from waiver of objections if the court finds that the party (1) subsequently served a response in substantial compliance with the other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure; and (2) failed to make timely response due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)

When a propounding party is not satisfied with responses, "the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate[; or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300.) 

Legal Standard—Monetary Sanctions:

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which the Discovery Act defines as conduct that includes:  making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)  The Court’s authority to impose discovery sanctions is not limited to imposing sanctions for individual violations of discovery requirements; in appropriate cases, the Court may impose sanctions for a pattern of discovery abuse.  (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46, 51.)

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction. 

With regard to a motion to compel further responses to requests for production, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.310(h) provides that sanctions shall be awarded against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

With regard to interrogatories, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 authorizes sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.

Meet and Confer Requirement

A party bringing certain discovery motions must attempt to meet and confer with their opposing party before filing the motion in an effort to resolve the dispute and avoid motion practice.  Motions to compel initial responses to interrogatories or inspection demands do not require any pre-filing meet and confer.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290 (interrogatories), 2031.300 (inspection demands).)  Likewise, a motion to deem requests for admission to be admitted can be filed without pre-filing meet and confer.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280.)   However, motions to compel further responses do require pre-filing meet and confer. (Code Civ Proc. §§ 2030.300(b)(1) (interrogatories), 2031.310(b)(2) (inspection demands), 2033.290(b)(1) (requests for admissions).)

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2016.040 provides that “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”

DISCUSSION

The instant motions were filed on October 3, 2024.  Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to provide timely responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions (Set One) and Form Interrogatories (Set One), with no extension having been granted.  Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s July 30, 2024 verified responses were untimely, should not have included objections, and must be supplemented.

Defendant’s opposition papers acknowledge that its responses were initially due on July 16, 2024, and assert that Plaintiff’s counsel provided a two-week extension of the time to respond, extending the deadline to July 30, 2024. Defendant claims that its unverified July 28, 2024 initial responses were served in time to preserve objections, and its July 30, 2024 verification of the responses were timely under the extension.  The opposition indicates that Defendant served amended responses, with the previously stated objections withdrawn, on June 2, 2025. 

A responding party may obtain an extension of time to respond to interrogatories from the propounding party.  The Discovery Act provides that when the parties agree to such an extension, the “agreement may be informal, but it shall be confirmed in a writing that specifies the extended date for service of a response.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.270(b).)  Defendant has not provided a copy of any such written confirmation, and Plaintiff denies having given an extension.  Therefore, there is no basis for the Court to find the initial responses were timely.

SANCTIONS

Since Defendant served amended responses withdrawing the objections, this motion is moot as to substance.  However, once a discovery motion has been filed, sanctions may still be awarded “even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)  The Court reasonably infers that Defendant’s service of amended responses was precipitated by Plaintiff’s filing of the motions.  Given the lack of any evidence of Plaintiff granting an written extension of the time to respond, the Court finds that Defendant has not shown substantial justification for the failure to serve responses.  Accordingly, sanctions are appropriate.  The Court finds that an award of sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant MMD, Inc. and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, is appropriate in the reduced amount of $1,000 per motion ($500/hr x 2 hrs) for a total of $2,000 in sanctions for the two motions.  Sanctions shall be paid within 30 days of this order.