Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00783, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00783    Hearing Date: October 6, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSE & DEEM RFA MATTERS ADMITTED

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  “The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412

ALLEGATIONS: 

Eureka Grant (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Salvador Garcia (“Defendant”) in connection with an automobile accident. Plaintiff claims she was injured when Defendant’s vehicle struck a vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger.

Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendant’s answers to her Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production (“RFPD”). Plaintiff also requests an order deeming RFA matters admitted.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response and for a monetary sanction.  (C.C.P. § 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.  (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.) 

Where there has been no timely response to a demand to produce documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (C.C.P. § 2031.300(b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (C.C.P. § 2031.300 (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she 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. 

If a party fails to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner, the requesting party may move for an order that the matters be deemed admitted. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(b) The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court unless the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220 prior to the hearing.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(c).)  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.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(a).) 

The 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. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).)

The Court shall impose monetary sanctions 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. (C.C.P. § 2030.290(c).) The same is true for a motion to compel a response to a demand for the production of documents. (C.C.P. § 2031.300(c).)

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. (C.C.P. § 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. (Id.)

II.                 MERITS

Request to Compel Responses & Deem RFA Admitted

Plaintiff propounded her first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, RFPD, and RFA on Defendant on April 20, 2023, via email service upon Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Gross Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiffs’ counsel thereafter provided a unilateral extension to respond until July 19, 2023. (Id. ¶ 3.) As of the filing of these motions Defendant had not served responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Id. ¶ 12.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel Defendant’s initial responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for the Production of Documents are GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to deem RFA matters admitted is also GRANTED.

Sanctions

As concerns motions to compel, the law only requires sanctions in the event that a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response. (C.C.P. §§ 2031.300 & 2031.290.) As such, any monetary sanctions granted are within the discretionary power of the Court as per Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290. As per Code of Civil Procedure 2023.010(d), failure to respond constitutes a misuse of the discovery process.

Additionally, 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. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(c).)

Here, Plaintiff prepared and filed several motions to compel and to deem RFA matters admitted, while Defendant has filed no oppositions. Plaintiff’s counsel attests that he spent 1.5 hours preparing each motion and that his hourly rate is $450. (Gross Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s counsel additionally states a $60 filing fee was incurred with respect to each motion. (Id.)  Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $2,940 [((1.5 x 4= 6) x 450 = 2,700) + (60 x 4 = 240) = $2,940]. Sanctions are granted jointly and severally as against Defendant and his counsel.  Sanctions are payable within 30 calendar days.

--- 

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 

Eureka Grant’s Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery and Motions to Deem Matters in Request for Admissions Admitted came on regularly for hearing on October 6, 2023, 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 DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ARE GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO DEEM RFA MATTERS ADMITTED IS GRANTED.

SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND HIS COUNSEL IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,940.  PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

ALL EXISTING DATES REMAIN.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT IS TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  October 6, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles