Judge Dennis J. Keough, Case 2022-01240243 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Dennis J. Keough, Case: 2022-01240243, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

1) Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories

2) Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories

3) Motion to Compel Production

4) Motion to Deem Facts Admitted

Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories

Defendant Daniel Mark Wilson’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Gustavo Castro Salvador to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories is DENIED as moot in part and GRANTED in part.

The Court considers the late Opposition. A court has discretion to refuse to consider late-filed papers without a showing of good cause. (Hobson v. Raychem Corp. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 614, 623, disapproved on other grounds in Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal. 4th 1019, 1031; see also Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [“A trial court has broad discretion under rule 3.1300(d) of the California Rules of Court to refuse to consider papers served and filed beyond the deadline without a prior court order finding good cause for late submission”].) If the court, in its discretion, refuses to consider a late-filed paper, the minutes or order must so indicate. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d).)

“It is a central precept to the Civil Discovery Act of 1986 . . . that civil discovery be essentially self-executing” (See Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1434-35). “Conduct frustrates the goal of a self-executing discovery system when it requires the trial court to become involved in discovery because a dispute leads a party to move for an order compelling [compliance with a discovery mechanism].” (See Clement v. Alegre, (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291.)

Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010 provides in relevant part that “[u]nless otherwise limited by order of the court … any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved … if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence …”

Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210 (a), provides, “The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: [¶] (1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered. [¶] (2) An exercise of the party's option to produce writings. [¶] (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.” Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.260, subdivision (a), provides, in relevant part, “Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party . . . .” Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.270, subdivision (a), explains, “The party propounding interrogatories, and the responding party may agree to extend the time for service of a response to a set of interrogatories . . . . [¶] (b) The agreement may be informal, but it shall be confirmed in a writing that specifies the extended date for service of a response.” Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 states, in part, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: . . . [¶] (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”

Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c) states “(c) 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. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”

Defendant seeks an order compelling initial verified responses to Form Interrogatories without objections, and monetary sanctions in the amount of $860.00. On 5-12-23, Plaintiff served initial responses without objections. (Declaration of Howard Choi, Ex. A.) Based on the foregoing, the motion is moot.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant Daniel Mark Wilson’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Gustavo Castro Salvador to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories.

The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions. Defendant is awarded $460.00 in monetary sanctions because this motion was necessary to obtain responses.

Defendant to provide notice.

Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories

Defendant Daniel Mark Wilson’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Gustavo Castro Salvador to Provide Responses to Special Interrogatories is DENIED as moot in part and GRANTED in part.

Defendant seeks an order compelling initial verified responses to Special Interrogatories without objections, and monetary sanctions in the amount of $860.00. On 5-12-23, Plaintiff served initial responses without objections. (Declaration of Howard Choi, Ex. A.) Based on the foregoing, the motion is moot.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant Daniel Mark Wilson’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Gustavo Castro Salvador to Provide Responses to Special Interrogatories.

The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions. Defendant is awarded $460.00 in monetary sanctions because this motion was necessary to obtain responses.

Defendant to provide notice.

Motion to Compel Production

Defendant Daniel Mark Wilson’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Gustavo Castro Salvador to Provide Responses to Requests for Production is DENIED as moot in part and GRANTED in part.

Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260 states: “(a) Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the party making the demand, the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the court has extended the time for response.”

Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 states: “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: ¶ (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).… ¶ (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. ¶ (c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), 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 a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”

Defendant seeks an order compelling initial verified responses to Requests for Production without objections, and monetary sanctions in the amount of $860.00. On 5-12-23, Plaintiff served initial responses without objections. (Declaration of Howard Choi, Ex. A.) Based on the foregoing, the motion is moot.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant Daniel Mark Wilson’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Gustavo Castro Salvador to Provide Responses to Requests for Production.

The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions. Defendant is awarded $460.00 in monetary sanctions because this motion was necessary to obtain responses.

Defendant to provide notice.

Motion to Deem Facts Admitted

Defendant Daniel Mark Wilson’s Motion to Deem the Requests for Admissions admitted is DENIED as moot in part and GRANTED in part.

Code Civ. Proc. section 2017.010 provides in relevant part that “[u]nless otherwise limited by order of the court … any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved … if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence …”

The “relevance to the subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are applied liberally. Any doubt is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery, particularly where the precise issues in the case are not yet clearly established. (Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.210(a)-(b) provides: “(a) The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under oath separately to each request.

(b) Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.210, states, “The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under oath separately to each request. [¶] Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request.” Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.250, subdivision (a), provides, in part, “Within 30 days after service of the requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared . . . .” Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.260, subdivision (a), explains, “The party requesting admissions and the responding party may agree to extend the time for service of a response to a set of admission requests, or to particular requests in a set, to a date beyond that provided in Section 2033.250.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, states, in relevant part, “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: . . . [¶] (b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010.) (c) 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.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.240 states: “(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed shall sign the response under oath, unless the response contains only objections. ¶ (b) If that party is a public or private corporation, or a partnership or association or governmental agency, one of its officers or agents shall sign the response under oath on behalf of that party. . .”

“The law governing the consequences for failing to respond to requests for admission may be the most unforgiving in civil procedure. There is no relief under section 473. The defaulting party is limited to the remedies available in [CCP § 2033.280].” (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 394-395 (disapproved on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983, fn. 12.)

Defendant seeks an order deeming the Requests for Admissions admitted, and monetary sanctions in the amount of $860.00. On 5-12-23, Plaintiff served initial responses without objections. (Declaration of Howard Choi, Ex. A.) Based on the foregoing, the motion is moot.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant Daniel Mark Wilson’s Motion to Deem the Requests for Admissions admitted.

The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions. Defendant is awarded $460.00 in monetary sanctions because this motion was necessary to obtain responses.

Defendant to provide notice.