Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV06531, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06531    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Elmer Palma 's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; Plaintiff Elmer Palma’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories; Plaintiff Elmer Palma’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents; Plaintiff Elmer Palma’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted

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

BACKGROUND

On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff Elmer Palma (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Soo Yang (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On May 9, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed Motions to Compel Discovery Responses and Deem Request for Admissions Admitted to be heard on December 28, 2022. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to February 17, 2023. On February 6, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition. On February 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for August 22, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the Court grant the motions to compel discovery. Plaintiff also requests the Court impose sanctions totaling $1,060.00 for each motion.

Defendant 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.

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.”

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

Discovery

On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff served discovery on Defendant. Plaintiff granted more than ten extensions, with a final due date of October 3, 2022. Defendant served “protective objections” on August 1, 2022, and requested an extension to provide substantive verified responses. Defendant never provided substantive verified responses. In a meet and confer letter, Defendant’s counsel noted that the Motion to Compel Further date would not run until substantive responses were served. (Ex. B.)

Defendant argues that because objections were served, Plaintiff needed to file a request for further responses. Although typically that is accurate, the Court finds that does not apply here. Defendant clearly intended for the “protective objections,” to not serve as Defendant’s answers. This is evidenced by the fact Defendant stated that the Motion to Compel Further date would not begin to run until substantive responses were served. Additionally, Defendant continued to request extensions to provide substantive answers, despite having already served objections.

The Court agrees that because objections were timely served that motions to compel further were required here.  Nonetheless, Defendant has stipulated to provide verified responses to all outstanding discovery, and so the Court will issue an order based upon that stipulation.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Elmer Palma 's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 20 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff Elmer Palma’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 20 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff Elmer Palma’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 20 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff Elmer Palma’s Motion to Compel Responses Admissions Admitted is DENIED, but the Court will grant an order compelling further responses.  Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 20 days of the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff Elmer Palma’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff Elmer Palma is ordered to pay one additional $60.00 filling fee.

            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.