Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV04917, Date: 2023-03-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV04917 Hearing Date: March 3, 2023 Dept: 28
Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez
Saldana’s Motion to Deem Jonathan Alexander Moran’s Request for Admissions
Admitted; Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana’s Motion to Compel Jonathan
Alexander Moran’s Responses to Special Interrogatories
Having
considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On
February 9, 2022, Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez Saldana (“Plaintiff”) filed
this action against Defendants Rodriguez Sr. Trucking, Inc. (“Rodriguez”), J
Cordero Trucking, Inc. (“Cordero”) and Jonathan Alexander Moran (“Moran”) for
negligence.
On
May 2, 2022, Rodriguez and Moran filed an answer.
On
November 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed Motions to Compel Responses to Special
Interrgatories and Deem Request for Admissions Admitted, set to be heard on March
3, 2023. On February 16, 2023, Rodriguez and Moran (“Opposing Defendants”) filed
an opposition. On February 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Trial
is currently scheduled for August 9, 2023.
PARTY’S
REQUESTS
Plaintiff
requests the Court compel Moran to serve full and complete verified responses
to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and deem Request for Admissions Admitted,
Set One. Plaintiff also requests $811.65 in sanctions for each motion.
Opposing
Defendants requests the Court deny the motions.
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
No
Moving Papers
The
Court notes that there are two additional motions on calendar regarding Form Interrogatories
and Request for Production of Documents. However, the moving papers for these
motions were never filed with the Court. The Court thus will not issue a ruling
on either form of discovery.
Discovery
Plaintiff
served discovery on Moran on May 4, 2022; responses were due on July 19, 2022. Moran
served unverified responses; unverified responses are equivalent to no response
at all.
Moran’s
counsel first notes they have been unable to contact Moran to provide
verifications and made Plaintiff aware of this fact. However, the Plaintiff is
still entitled to timely discovery responses; Moran’s failure to provide timely
verifications is still considered to be misuse of the discovery process, and
subject to sanctions.
Moran
also argues that a motion to compel is not the proper means to bring forward
this motion—rather these motions should have been motions to compel further, as
Moran served objection only responses. While it is true that a response
consisting of only objections does not require verification, Moran’s
special interrogatory responses do not only consist of objections. The response
to the Special Interrogatories contains multiple answers with no objections.
The Request for Admissions is wholly comprised of objections, which do not
require verifications under CCP § 2033.240. A motion to compel further is required
to grant relief regarding admissions. The Court grants the motion only as to the
interrogatories and requests for production.
Sanctions
Plaintiff
is entitled to reasonable sanctions due to Defendants’ misuse of the discovery
process in failing to provide verifications. The Court will only grant
sanctions for the three granted motions.
Plaintiff
seeks sanctions of $811.65 for each of motion, based on 3 hours of attorney’s
time at a rate of $250.00 per hour and one $61.65 filling fee. 1.5 hours were
spent drafting the motion and 1.5 hours attending the hearing. The Court
accounts for the fact that the motions are substantially similar and will be
heard concurrently. The Court awards sanctions of $684.94 (2 hrs. x $250 + 3 x
$61.50).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez
Saldana’s Motion to Deem Jonathan Alexander Moran’s Request for Admissions
Admitted is DENIED.
Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez
Saldana’s Motion to Compel Jonathan Alexander Moran’s Responses to Special
Interrogatories is GRANTED. Rodriguez is ordered to provide verified,
code-compliant responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.
Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez
Saldana’s Motion to Compel Jonathan Alexander Moran’s Responses to Form
Interrogatories is GRANTED. Rodriguez is ordered to provide verified,
code-compliant responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.
Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez
Saldana’s Motion to Compel Jonathan Alexander Moran’s Responses to Requests for
Production is GRANTED. Rodriguez is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant
responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.
Plaintiff Jesus Martin Martinez
Saldana’s Requests for Sanctions is GRANTED. Moran is ordered to pay Plaintiff
$684.94 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.