Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV03729, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03729    Hearing Date: December 19, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two)

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

BACKGROUND

On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff Quiwaneca Spikes (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transporation Authority (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence, public entity's liability pursuant to GC § 820.2 through 823 and Public entitle liability based on GC § 815.2 and 815.4.

On July 15, 2021, Defendant filed an answer.

On August 19, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) set to be heard on November 9, 2022. On September 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Time to respond admission to response answers to interrogatories set one and two”.

On August 19, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted set to be heard on November 8, 2022. On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Extension”. 

The Court continued the hearing on both to December 19, 2022. On December 7, 2022, Plaintiff served a “Proof of Service by Mail.”

Trial is currently scheduled for May 17, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests the Court compel Plaintiff to provide a response to Form Interrogatory Number 17.1. Defendant requests the Court deem Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted. 

Plaintiff requests the Court grant an extension.

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.

CCP §2030.290 outlines that, if a party fails to serve a timely response to discovery requests waives any right to object to the interrogatories, including objections based on privilege or work-product.  

Under CCP § 2033.280: 

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.

(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

(b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

(c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”

DISCUSSION

The Court previously granted a one-month continuance, so that Plaintiff has time to serve code-complaint responses. Plaintiff served a proof of service and copy of a “Response to Admissions,” along with a proper verification. However, Plaintiff did not submit any indication that Plaintiff served the requested Form Interrogatories responses. The Court grants the Motion as to Form Interrogatories.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admissions (Set One) is MOOT.

 Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve code-compliant discovery responses 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.