Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00235, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00235    Hearing Date: May 19, 2023    Dept: A

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSE

ALLEGATIONS: 

On January 1, 2023, Clayton Halsey (“Plaintiff”) brought this unlawful detainer action against Leah Caroline Williams (“Defendant”). Plaintiff seeks approximately $28,458 in unpaid rent pursuant to a lease agreement for the property located at 4302 Babcock Avenue, Unit 1, Studio City, CA 91604. Defendant has answered and is in pro per.

HISTORY: 

On April 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed motions to compel responses to his Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPD”), and Request for Admissions (“RFA”). No oppositions were filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff requests the Court issue an order compelling Defendant to respond to his Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPD. Plaintiff also requests an order deeming RFA matters admitted.

Plaintiff requests the Court order sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $960.

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 his first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, RFPD, and RFA on Defendant on March 10, 2023, via overnight delivery. (Block Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) On April 7, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant a meet and confer letter, providing until April 12, 2023 to provide responses to the discovery requests. (Id. ¶ 4.) As of the filing of these motions Defendant had not served responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Id. ¶ 5.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel Defendant’s initial response 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 if 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. As such, the court awards sanctions to Plaintiff with respect to the motions to compel and the motion to deem RFA matters admitted. Sanctions are granted in the amount of $960. This amount is based on 2 hours of attorney work in preparing the motion and appearing at the May 19, 2023 hearing, plus the filing fee (($450 x 2= 900) + 60 = $960). (Block Decl. ¶ 7.)

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 

Clayton Halsey’s Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery and Motion to Deem Matters in Request for Admissions Admitted came on regularly for hearing on May 19, 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 MOTION TO DEEM RFA MATTERS ADMITTED IS GRANTED.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED FOR PLAINTIFF AGAINST LEAH CAROLINE WILLIAMS.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  May 19, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

    Superior Court of California 

       County of Los Angeles