Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV17990, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17990    Hearing Date: April 3, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On July 31, 2023, Plaintiffs Krystal Latoya Montgomery, Jeremiah Daquan Montgomery, Anterrika DeShante Willis, and Kristina Lashay Simpson, individually and as guardians at litem for various minors, filed this action against Defendants George Morcos and Mervat Morcos. The complaint alleges (1) breach of the implied warranty of habitability, (2) negligence, (3) nuisance, and (4) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4. 

            On February 29, 2024, Defendants filed the instant motion to compel responses to discovery and to establish admissions. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on March 21, 2024. Defendants filed their reply on March 26, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

Discovery responses are due 30 days after service of the requests, unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a).) If a responding party fails to respond in time, the propounding party may move for an order compelling the responses or deeming matters admitted. (Id., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b), 2033.280(b).) The responding party also waives its objections. (Id., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a).)

DISCUSSION

Defendants propounded the subject interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission on January 8, 2024. (Michels Decl. ¶ 4.) On February 13, 2024, Plaintiffs served late responses that were unverified and contained objections. (Id., ¶ 5.) Unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all. (Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Therefore, Plaintiffs essentially did not respond to the discovery requests. A motion to compel responses in the first instance, unlike a motion to compel further, does not require prior meet and confer or a separate statement.

Plaintiffs served verifications on March 13, 2024, after this motion was filed. (Ohn Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs additionally request relief from their waiver of objections based on a calendaring error. (Id., ¶ 3.) The court may relieve a party from a waiver of objections if (1) the party serves substantially compliant responses, and (2) the failure to timely respond was caused by mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a).) Plaintiffs’ responses were substantially code-compliant even if not perfectly compliant. Defendants retain the right to file motions to compel further. The Court also finds that the delay was caused by mistake or excusable neglect. Therefore, objections are not waived.

However, sanctions are mandatory, regardless of substantial justification, whenever a party’s failure to timely respond to requests for admission necessitates the filing of a motion to deem matters admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).) Plaintiffs also provide no substantial justification for failing to verify their late responses. Therefore, sanctions are warranted. Defense counsel claims an hourly rate of $450, which is reasonable. (See Michels Decl. ¶ 26.) However, based on the simplicity of the motion, the Court reduces the reasonable hours to 3 hours. Defendants are also entitled to recover the $60 filing fee. Therefore, the total amount of sanctions is $1,410.

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion to compel responses is GRANTED in part. Admissions are not deemed admitted, and objections are not waived. The Court sanctions Plaintiffs and their counsel in the total amount of $1,410, to be paid within 30 days of this order.