Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV28670, Date: 2023-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28670    Hearing Date: March 10, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiff John Chavez’s Motion to Deem Defendant Fault Line Logistics' Request for Admissions Admitted; Plaintiff John Chavez’s Motion to Compel Defendant Fault Line Logistics' Responses to Request for Production of Documents; Plaintiff John Chavez’s Motion to Compel Defendant Fault Line Logistics’ Responses to Form Interrogatories; Plaintiff John Chavez’s Motion to Compel Defendant Fault Line Logistics' Responses to Special Interrogatories

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

BACKGROUND

On August 4, 2021, Plaintiff John Chavez (“Chavez) filed this action against Defendants Epifanio Benitez (“Benitez”) and Fault Line Logistics (“FLL”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On September 20, 2021, Defendants filed an answer.

On October 25, 2021, Plaintiffs Chavez and Diana Perez (“Perez”) filed the FAC.

On January 12, 2023, Chavez filed Motions to Compel Discovery Responses and Deem Request for Admissions Admitted, set to be heard on March 10, 2023. On March 3, 2023, FLL filed an opposition.

Trial is currently scheduled for July 27, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Chavez requests the Court compel FLL to serve full and complete verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Deem Request for Admissions Admitted, Set One. Plaintiff also requests $5,500.00 in sanctions across all motions.

FLL states they intend to have answers provided by the time of the hearing.

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 § 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.”

CCP § 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.”

CCP § 2033.220 provides the following: “(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.”

Under CCP § 2033.280, a party who fails to serve timely responses to requests for admissions waives any objections to the requests, including those based on privilege. Upon failure to serve a timely response, a requesting party can move for a court order that the truth of the matter specified in the requests be deemed admitted. CCP § 2033.280(c) states “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

On October 6, 2021, Chavez served discovery on FLL, with responses due November 8, 2021. FLL has yet to serve responses to discovery.

FLL’s counsel submitted an opposition stating that counsel has never had the opportunity to communicate with anyone at FLL, as it ceased business operations at the relevant facility. Counsel's only sources of contact has been an administrative services company; their source of contact recently left the company, and counsel has recently found a new contact to assist with discovery. However, they anticipate having verified discovery responses by the time of the hearing.

FLL has appeared in this case; it is reasonable for Chavez to expect timely discovery responses. While the Court sympathizes with FLL’s communication issues, discovery has been outstanding for approximately 1.5 years at this point. The Court grants the motion and finds a basis for sanctions based on misuse of the discovery process given the substantial delay. Should FLL serve verified responses prior to the hearing on this motion, the Court will rule the motion as to the discovery moot.

Chavez seeks sanctions of $5,500.00, based on 11 hours of attorney’s time at a rate of $500.00 per hour. 6 hours were spent drafting, 3 hours were anticipated to reply to any opposition and 2 hours were anticipated to appear at the hearing. The Court first notes that Chavez improperly combined 4 motions into 1, and orders Chavez to pay 3 additional $60.00 filling fees. The Court also notes Chavez did not file a reply. The Court awards sanctions of $1,240.00 across all motions, based on 4 hours of attorney’s work at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour, and 4 $60.00 filling fees.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff John Chavez’s Motion to Deem Defendant Fault Line Logistics' Request for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED. The request for admissions is deemed admitted.

Plaintiff John Chavez’s Motion to Compel Defendant Fault Line Logistics' Responses to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. FLL is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff John Chavez’s Motion to Compel Defendant Fault Line Logistics’ Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. FLL is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff John Chavez’s Motion to Compel Defendant Fault Line Logistics' Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. FLL is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff John Chavez’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. FLL is ordered to pay Chavez $1,240.00 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.