Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV06732, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06732    Hearing Date: February 21, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories; Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents; Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted

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

BACKGROUND

On February 23, 2022, Plaintiff Ardis Ann Oliver (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Michaels Stores, Inc. (“MS”), Michaels Arts and Crafts Store (“MACS”), Seventy-Fifth LLC (“Seventy Fifth”), 18000 Chatsworth Street (“Chatsworth”) and Robert Stirzel (“Stirzel”) for general negligence and premises liability.

On May 5 ,2022, MS filed an answer.

On July 13, 2022, Seventy Fifth filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Roes 1-50 for equitable indemnity, contribution, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief.

On November 15, 2022, MS filed Motions to Compel Discovery Responses and Deem Request for Admissions Admitted to be heard on February 21, 2023. On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

Trial is currently scheduled for March 17, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

MS requests the Court grant the motions to compel discovery, with responses due within 10 days of the hearing on the motion. MS also requests the Court impose sanctions totaling $1870.00 for each motion.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion.

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

On May 5, 2022, MS served discovery on Plaintiff, with a final due date of July 27, 2022. Plaintiff did not provide responses prior to the filing of this motion.

Plaintiff provided code-compliant discovery responses on November 23, 2022, to MS, making these motions moot.

MS is still entitled to monetary sanctions. Even though Plaintiff claims that it served identical discovery responses to Seventy Fifth’s discovery the day before filing this motion, this is irrelevant—Plaintiff still needed to provide timely discovery responses to MS, even if the discovery questions were substantially similar.  By providing late responses, Plaintiff engaged in misuse of the discovery process.

MS requests $1,870.00 in sanctions for each of the four motions, based on 9.5 hours of attorney’s work at a rate of $190.00 per hour, and 1 $65.00 filling fee. Attorney’s work is based on 4.5 hours drafting, 3 hours replying to any opposition and 2 hours appearing on the motion. The Court notes that all motions are substantially similar and will be heard concurrently. The Court also notes that MS did not file any replies to Plaintiff’s opposition. The Court awards $1,215.00 in sanctions across all motions, based on 5 hours of attorney’s work and 4 $60.00 filling fees.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is MOOT.

Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is MOOT.

Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents is MOOT.

Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted is MOOT.

Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay MS $1,215.00 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.