Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 21BBCV00512, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21BBCV00512    Hearing Date: September 30, 2022    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS MATTERS ADMITTED

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS

ALLEGATIONS:

Plaintiff filed this Unlawful Detainer Complaint on June 1, 2021, against Defendants.

PRESENTATION:

The Court received the Motions to Compel Responses to Inspection Demands, to Deem RFA Matters Admitted, and to Compel Responses to Interrogatories filed by Defendant on August 25, 2022; the opposition filed by Plaintiff on September 19, 2022; and the reply filed by Plaintiff on September 26, 2022.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Defendant Ditty Container, Inc. moves for an order deeming the truth of all matters in Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted, and all answers to the Defendant’s Request for Inspection and Interrogatories be compelled without objections. Defendant also moves for associated sanctions in the amount of $810 per motion.

ANALYSIS:

I.          LEGAL STANDARD

If a party fails to timely respond to requests for admission, the propounding party may move for a Court order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted. (CCP § 2033.280.) An untimely responding party waives all objections, including privilege, unless they subsequently serve responses in substantial compliance with the Civil Discovery Act and demonstrate that their failure is the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (CCP § 2030.290(a); § 2033.280(a).) The Court shall impose monetary sanctions for failure to timely respond to requests for admission unless the party acted with substantial justification, or the circumstances render imposition of sanctions unjust. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) For untimely responses to Requests for Admission, the Court shall deem the Requests for Admission admitted unless the responding party serves a code compliant response prior to the hearing. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) The Court must impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve timely Requests for Admission responses necessitated the motion. (Ibid.)

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.  (CCP § 2030.290(b). The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.)

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP § 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, they cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. (Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 8:1487.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[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. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Under § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

II.        MERITS

Although it may appear that the motions are moot as Plaintiff has served responses since the filing of the motion. (Alexander Decl., ¶5.) Defendant alleges that the responses are not code compliant nor complete.  Any issues with responses must be addressed in a noticed Furthermore, Defendant alleges that some responses are not complete.   Prior to the Court issuing a Motion to Compel, the Court believes that a meet and confer as to that issue would be appropriate, as would a meet and confer regarding missing documents. 

Nevertheless, as the noticed matter included a motion to compel, the court will order the parties to meet and confer within ten days, and Plaintiff to provide code compliant responses and production of documents not already produced in a code complaint manner within ten days after the meet an confer. (CCP ¶ 2031.280(a)).

III.       SANCTIONS

As Plaintiff did not serve the subject discovery responses until after the motions were filed, the Court awards sanctions to Defendant against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,530, representing three hours of attorney work at $450 per hour, plus three $60 filing fee.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendant Ditty Container, Inc.’s Motions to Compel Responses to Inspection Demands, to Deem RFA Matters Admitted, and to Compel Responses to Interrogatories came on regularly for hearing on September 30, 2022, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS AND COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED.  PARTIES MUST MEET AND CONFER WITHIN TEN DAYS, AND COMPLIANCE BY PLAINTIFF MUST BE WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER THE MEET AND CONFER.  ANY RESPONSE MUST BE CODE COMPLIANT.

THE MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS MATTERS ADMITTED IS MOOT.   

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED FOR DEFENDANT AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,530.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE:  September 30, 2022                          _______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles