Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV09791, Date: 2023-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV09791    Hearing Date: January 25, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Ana Luz Aguilar’s Motion to Deem Defendant Sepulveda Apts. Inc.’s Request for Admissions Admitted; Plaintiff Ana Luz Aguilar’s Motion to Compel Defendant Sepulveda Apts. Inc.’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents; Plaintiff Ana Luz Aguilar’s Motion to Deem Defendant Anza Management Company’s Request for Admissions Admitted; Plaintiff Ana Luz Aguilar’s Motion to Compel Defendant Anza Management Company Responses to Request for Production of Documents.

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

BACKGROUND

On March 10, 2020, Plaintiff Ana Luz Aguilar (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Sepulveda Apts. Inc. (“Sepulveda”) for negligence and premises liability.

On June 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed the FAC, adding Defendant Anza Management Company (“Anza”).

On August 7, 2020, Defendants filed an answer.

On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed Motions to Compel Discovery Responses and Deem Request for Admissions Admitted, set to be heard on January 25, 2023. On January 12, 2023, Defendants filed oppositions. On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for March 16, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the Court order Anza to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set two, without objections. Plaintiff also requests the Court deem the request for admissions admitted. Plaintiff also requests the Court impose sanctions totaling $1,260.00 against Anza for each of the two motions.

Plaintiff requests the Court order Sepulveda to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set two, without objections. Plaintiff also requests the Court deem the request for admissions admitted. Plaintiff also requests the Court impose sanctions totaling $1,260.00 against Sepulveda for each of the two motions.

Defendants request the Court deny Plaintiff’s request.

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.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 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.”

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(c) states that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a 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.”

DISCUSSION

Discovery

Plaintiff served discovery on both Defendants on July 20, 2022; responses were due on August 23, 2022. On October 13, 2022, Defendants served unverified responses. The responses to the request for production solely consisted of boilerplate objections.

Defendants state they will serve discovery prior to the hearing on the motion. At the time of filing the reply, Plaintiff indicate it has yet to receive responses. The Court has no way of verifying that verified responses, without objections, have been served. The Court grants the motions. Should Defendants serve compliant, verified responses prior to the hearing, and testify as such at the hearing, the Court will deny the motion.

Sanctions

Regardless of whether discovery responses are served prior to the hearing, discovery is long overdue. Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable sanctions due to Defendants’ use of the discovery process.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $1,260.00 for each of the four motions, based on 4 hours of attorney’s time at a rate of $300.00 per hour and one $60.00 filling fee. 1 hour was spent meeting and conferring, 1 hour preparing the motion, 1 hour reviewing Defendants’ opposition and .5 hours attending the hearing. The Court will not award sanctions based on meet and confer efforts. The Court also accounts for the fact that the motions are substantially similar and will be heard concurrently. The Court awards sanctions of $1,740.00 across all motions. As there are two Defendants, the Court splits the sanctions between the two Defendants.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Ana Luz Aguilar’s Motion to Deem Defendant Sepulveda Apts. Inc.’s Request for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED. Request for Admissions against Sepulveda are deemed admitted.

 Plaintiff Ana Luz Aguilar’s Motion to Compel Defendant Sepulveda Apts. Inc.’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Sepulveda is ordered to produce verified responses, without objections, within 10 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff Ana Luz Aguilar’s Motion to Deem Defendant Anza Management Company’s Request for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED. Request for Admissions against Anza are deemed admitted.

Plaintiff Ana Luz Aguilar’s Motion to Compel Defendant Anza Management Company Responses to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Anza is ordered to produce verified responses, without objections, within 10 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff Ana Luz Aguilar’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Sepulveda and Sepulveda’s counsel are ordered to pay Plaintiff $870.00 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the motion. Anza and Anza’s counsel are ordered to pay Plaintiff $870.00 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.