Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV22850, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV22850 Hearing Date: October 11, 2022 Dept: 28
Plaintiff Jorge Granados’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted; Plaintiff Jorge Granados’s Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Form Interrogatories; Plaintiff Jorge Granados’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Supplemental Production of Documents.
Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff Jorge Granados (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Tigran Nazaryan (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. On August 12, 2020, Defendant filed an answer.
On February 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed Motions to Compel Discovery Responses and Deem Request for Admissions Admitted, set to be heard on October 11, 2022. On September 28, 2022, Defendant filed an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for December 1, 2022.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff requests the Court grant the motions to compel discovery and deem the RFA admitted. Plaintiff also requests the Court impose sanctions of $3,068.40 for each motion.
Defendants requests the Court deny the motion.
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
Plaintiff served Defendant with supplemental requests for discovery, supplemental form interrogatories, and request for admissions on November 19, 2021. Defendant served unverified responses on December 28, 2021. Defendant did not serve verified responses until February 22, 2022, four days after the service of the motion. As Defendant has served code-compliant responses, the Court denies the motion.
Sanctions are still warranted, however, as Defendant failed to serve timely code-compliant responses, even if the responses consisted of merely a statement there was no new information to disclose since serving previous responses. The Court awards sanctions totaling $785.25, based on 3 hours of attorney’s work, at a reasonable rate of $200.00 per hour, and 3 $61.65 filling fees.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Jorge Granados’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted is DENIED.
Plaintiff Jorge Granados’s Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Form Interrogatories is DENIED.
Plaintiff Jorge Granados’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Supplemental Production of Documents is DENIED.
Plaintiff Jorge Granados’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. The Court awards sanctions on Defendant and Defendant’s counsel totaling $785.25, to be paid 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.