Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV02923, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02923    Hearing Date: August 26, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Edgardo Rodlan’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted; Defendant Edgardo Rodlan’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories; Defendant Edgardo Rodlan’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents.

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

BACKGROUND

On January 25, 2021, Plaintiff Claudia Wheeles (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Edgardo Roldan (“Defendant”) for premises liability.

On April 27, 2021, Defendant filed a response.

On June 24, 2022, Defendant filed Motions to Compel Discovery Responses and Deem Request for Admissions Admitted, set to be heard on August 26, 2022. On July 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On August 17, 2022, Defendant filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 26, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests the Court grant the motions to compel discovery and deem the RFA admitted. Defendant also requests the Court impose sanctions totaling $6,000.00 across all motions.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion as Defendant never properly served the answer.

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

Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery via email on April 10, 2022. Defendant served the same discovery again on April 11, 2022, at Plaintiff attorney’s email of choice. Responses were due on May 13, 2022; Plaintiff answered discovery on May 18, 2022. Responses consisted of only objections and no code-compliant, substantive answers.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant never properly served Plaintiff with an answer and thus do not have the right to enforce discovery. Defendant states that the complaint as received was illegible in certain areas, including Plaintiff’s e-mail address. Defendant search Plaintiff’s then attorney, Raymond Feldman, on the CALBAR website which lists raymondfeldman@gmail.com as his email address. This is the address Defendant served the answer on. Defendant followed up with Plaintiff’s attorney, who acknowledged receipt of the answer. Discovery was similarly served on that email until otherwise informed by Plaintiff’s attorney that he wished to be served at a different email. At that point, Defendant complied with the request.

Plaintiff also notes that it requested an extension on May 6, 2022, but that Defendant did not grant the request. This is not an explanation for late and non-code-compliant responses. Defendant is not obligated to provide an extension.

Based on the above, the Court grants the motion.

Sanctions

Defendant seeks sanctions totaling $6,000.00 across all motions based upon 15 hours of attorney’s work at a rate of $400.00 per hour. Defendant estimates spending 13 hours drafting the motions and 2 hours appearing at the hearing on the motions. Given that all of these motions are substantially similar, the Court instead awards sanctions based upon 5 hours of attorney’s work, totaling $2,000.00. This will be imposed against Plaintiff, only.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Edgardo Rodlan’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED. Admissions are deemed admitted.

Defendant Edgardo Rodlan’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide a verified, code compliant response, without objection, within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.

Defendant Edgardo Rodlan’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide a verified, code compliant response, without objection, within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.

Defendant Edgardo Rodlan’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendant $2,000.00 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.