Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2023-00019897-CU-PA-NC, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024

06/14/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00019897-CU-PA-NC RAMIREZ VS SMITH [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 02/29/2024

Plaintiffs Monique Ramirez and Madeline Ramirez (collectively, 'Plaintiffs')'s motion to: (1) compel Defendant Same Day Restoration of Orange County, Inc. ('Defendant') to provide responses to Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One), and (2) deem Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted, and for sanctions, is granted.

On July 3, 2023, Plaintiffs electronically served Defendant with the subject discovery requests. See Miller Decl., Exs. A-C. Defendant's responses initially were due by August 4, 2023. See Cal. Code Civ.

P. §§ 1010.6(a)(3)(B), 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a). Between July 31 and September 18, 2023, Defendant's counsel requested, and Plaintiffs' counsel granted, numerous extensions of time to respond to the subject discovery requests with a final deadline of October 4, 2023. See Miller Decl., Exs.

D-F. Defendant did not provide responses by the agreed upon deadline or seek a further extension of time to do so. Ibid., ¶ 10. The parties engaged in meet and confer efforts throughout January 2024, with Plaintiffs' counsel sending a final meet and confer email on February 20, 2024. Ibid., Exs. G-I. To date, Defendant has not provided responses to the subject discovery requests. Ibid., ¶ 15. The foregoing constitutes grounds to grant the motion. See Cal. Code Civ. P. §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b), 2033.280(b). In addition, Defendant has not provided evidence that it has served, before this hearing, proposed responses to the Request for Admissions that substantially comply with California Code of Civil Procedure ('CCP') § 2033.220. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2033.280(c); St. Mary v. Sup. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 762, 776.

The court must impose sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to written interrogatories or a request for production of documents '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.' Cal. Code Civ. P. §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c). The party subject to sanctions bears the burden of proving that he or she acted with substantial justification. See Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal. App. 4th 1424, 1435 (citing Cal. Evid. Code §§ 500 and 550; Kohan v. Cohan (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 967, 971). Substantial justification means justification that is clearly reasonable because it is well grounded in both law and fact. See Doe, 200 Cal. App. 4th at 1434 (citing Nader Automotive Group, LLC v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 1478, 1480).

Additionally, the court must '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.' Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2033.280(c).

In this case, the court finds that Defendant has not met its burden of demonstrating that it was substantially justified in failing to serve timely responses to the subject discovery requests. Defendant Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3096704 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  RAMIREZ VS SMITH [IMAGED]  37-2023-00019897-CU-PA-NC cites no authority for the proposition that it can refuse to participate in the discovery process simply because it believes that it was improperly named as a defendant in this action. Plaintiffs are entitled to demand answers to their written discovery as a matter of right. If Defendant believes that it is not a proper party to this lawsuit, it has legal avenues to address that contention; however, refusing to respond to discovery until Plaintiffs capitulate and either amend their Complaint or dismiss Defendant from this action is improper. Moreover, it does not appear, either from the correspondence attached to Mr. Miller's declaration or the exhibits attached to Defendant's opposition, that this issue was ever addressed during the parties' meet and confer efforts concerning the subject discovery requests.

In light of the foregoing, the court grants the motion and: (1) directs Defendant to serve verified Code-compliant responses, without objections, and documents responsive to Plaintiffs' Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within twenty-one (21) days of this hearing; (2) deems admitted the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions; and (3) awards Plaintiffs $2,310.00 in sanctions against Defendant, due and payable to Plaintiffs within twenty-one (21) days of this hearing.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, June 14, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of June 14, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3096704