Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 21SMCV01874, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01874    Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

MOVING PARTY:                Defendants Joshua Kadisha, Haleh Manavi, Trustee of the Haleh-Manavi-Kadisha Living Trust under Trust Instrument dated April 2, 2009

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiffs Amanda Razi and Joseph Azizi

BACKGROUND

            This case arises from a dispute between neighbors.  Plaintiffs Amanda Razi and Joseph Azizi allege that roots and branches belonging to trees on the property of Defendants Joseph Kadisha, Haleh Manavi, Trustee of the Haleh Manavi-Kadisha Living Trust, have encroached onto Plaintiffs’ property.  Plaintiffs allege the roots, branches and other debris from Defendants’ trees have caused extensive damage to their pool, air conditioning units, roof, retaining walls and foundation and have resulted in a diminution of their property value.  The operative complaint alleges eight causes of action for (1) private nuisance by encroachment of tree branches, (2) private nuisance by encroachment of tree roots, (3) tortious injury to real property, (4) conversion, (5) negligence, (6) negligence per se, (7) trespass by encroachment of tree branches, and (8) trespass by encroachment of tree roots.  Plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $900,000. 

This hearing is on Defendants’ motions (1) to compel responses to requests for production (set one), (2) to compel responses to form interrogatories (set one) and special interrogatories (set one), (3) to deem admitted matters in the requests for admissions (set one), and (4) for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,440.  Plaintiffs have not filed any opposition.  Counsel for Plaintiffs withdrew as counsel of record on October 4, 2022, and there has been no appearance by new counsel.  Plaintiffs appeared in pro per at the last case management conference held on December 5, 2022.                 

DISCUSSION

Requests for Production of Documents

A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260(a).)  If a party to whom requests for production of documents is directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c).)  The party also waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection.  (Code Civ. Proc. §¿2031.300(a).)  There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§¿2024.020(a), 2031.300.)  No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)    

Here, Defendants served requests for production of documents (set one) by email service on July 13, 2022.  (Esposito Decl. ¶4.)  Responses were due by August 16, 2022 (30 days plus 2 court days for email service).  Defendants granted Plaintiff an extension until 30 days after the hearing on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw.  (Esposito Decl. ¶5.)  The hearing on the motion to withdraw was on October 4, 2022, making the responses due 30 days later, on November 2, 2022.  (Esposito Decl. ¶6.)  As of the date the motion was filed (on December 5, 2022), no responses have been served.  (Esposito Decl. ¶7.)  Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to compel responses to the requests for production of documents (set one). 

Form and Special Interrogatories

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service.  (Code Civ. Proc., §¿2030.260(a).)  If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc. §¿2030.290(b).)  Once compelled to respond, the party waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection.  (Code Civ. Proc. §¿2030.290(a).)  There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020(a), 2030.290.)  No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery.  (See Code Civ. Proc. §¿2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) 

Here, Defendants served form interrogatories (set one) and special interrogatories (set one) by email service on July 13, 2022.  (Esposito Decl. ¶4.)  Responses were due by August 16, 2022 (30 calendar days plus 2 court days for email service).  Defendants granted Plaintiff an extension until 30 days after the hearing on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw.  (Esposito Decl. ¶5.)  The hearing on the motion to withdraw was on October 4, 2022, making the responses due 30 days later, on November 2, 2022.  (Esposito Decl. ¶6.)  As of the date the motion was filed (on December 5, 2022), no responses have been served.  (Esposito Decl. ¶7.)  Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to compel responses to form interrogatories (set one) and special interrogatories (set one). 

Requests for Admissions

Under Code Civ. Proc. §2033.280(b), failure to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner allows the requesting party to “move for an order that…the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted” by the party that failed to respond.  The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court, “unless [the court] 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)  Since such a motion is in response to a failure to respond, there is no requirement to meet and confer prior to moving to deem the requests for admission admitted.  (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007), 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.).  By failing to timely respond, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2033.280(a).) 

Here, Defendants served the requests for admissions (set one) by email service on July 13, 2022.  (Esposito Decl. ¶4.)  Responses were due by August 16, 2022 (30 calendar days plus 2 court days for email service).  Defendants granted Plaintiff an extension until 30 days after the hearing on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw.  (Esposito Decl. ¶5.)  The hearing on the motion to withdraw was on October 4, 2022, making the responses due 30 days later, on November 2, 2022.  (Esposito Decl. ¶6.)  As of the date the motion was filed (on December 5, 2022), no responses have been served.  (Esposito Decl. ¶7.)  Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to deem matters admitted in the requests for admissions. 

Monetary Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone because of that conduct.  Misuse of discovery includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §¿2023.010(d)).  Furthermore, it is “mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)  

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ failure to serve timely, code-compliant responses to Defendants’ discovery requests constitutes a misuse of the discovery process.  The Court is also required to impose a monetary sanction on Plaintiffs for their failure to respond to Requests for Admission under Code Civ. Proc. §2033.280, subdivision (c).  

Defendants seek monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1440 for all three motions to compel.  The total amount of $1440 represents six hours spent drafting the motions plus one hour appearing for the motions, at an hourly rate of $180.00.  The Court finds these fees reasonable, and grants Defendants’ motion for sanctions.       

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions (1) to compel responses to requests for production (set one), (2) to compel responses to form interrogatories (set one) and special interrogatories (set one), (3) to deem admitted matters in the requests for admissions (set one), and (4) for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,440 against Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs are ordered to provide responses, without objections, to the requests for production (set one), form interrogatories (set one) and special interrogatories (set one) within 30 days of the issuance of this Order.  Plaintiffs are also ordered to pay $1,440 to Defendants’ counsel, Murchison & Cumming, LLP, within 30 days of the issuance of this Order.    

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 19, 2023                                         ___________________________

                                                                                    Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court