Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV02207, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02207    Hearing Date: April 5, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES & DEEM RFA MATTERS ADMITTED

NOTICE:

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: 

On September 25, 2023, The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, (Caltrans) brought this action against Apex Development, Inc. (Apex), Anthony Nowaid (Nowaid), Eriks Towing, The Habibi Shack, Challenger Trucking Express, Stone Concrete Mix, and Valley Green Tree Services (collectively Defendants). This is an unlawful detainer matter in which Caltrans seeks possession from Defendants of the property located at 12398 Sheldon Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352. Some Defendants have been subsequently dismissed from this action, but Apex and Nowaid remain. On November 11, 2023, Apex and Nowaid filed a collective Answer to the Complaint.

Before the Court are the following eight motions brought by Caltrans:

1.      Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories as to Apex.

2.      Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories as to Apex.

3.      Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Matters Admitted as to Apex.

4.      Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents as to Apex.

5.      Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories as to Nowaid.

6.      Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories as to Nowaid

7.      Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Matters Admitted as to Nowaid.

8.      Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents as to Nowaid.

Defendants have not opposed any of these motions.

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 C.C.P. § 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).) 

Finally, in this instance the motion is unopposed.  A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.  Failure to file an opposition to the motion indicates the other parties' acquiescence that the motion is meritorious. CRC Rule 8.54(c)

II.                 MERITS

Request to Compel Responses

On February 5, 2024, Caltrans propounded its written discovery on Apex and Nowaid consisting of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission (RFA), and Requests for Production of Documents (RFPD). (Choi Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) The requests were directed to Apex and Nowaid separately for a total of 8 separate discovery requests. Discovery was served via email on counsel for Apex and Nowaid. (Id.) Caltrans states that they have received no responses to any discovery from Apex or Nowaid, despite the fact that the discovery deadline was February 13, 2024. (Choi Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.) Caltrans further states that they have received no request for extension from Apex or Nowaid. (Id.)

Failure to file an opposition to the motion indicates the other parties' acquiescence that the motion is meritorious. CRC Rule 8.54(c).  Based on the foregoing, Caltrans’ unopposed motions to compel initial response to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPD as to Apex and Nowaid are GRANTED.

Caltrans’ unopposed motions to deem RFA matters admitted as to Apex and Nowaid are also GRANTED.

Sanctions

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).) In contrast, 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.) Additionally, it is customary to grant sanctions where a party has filed a motion to compel, and the other party fails to file an opposition. (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).) 

Here, Caltrans prepared and filed eight separate motions to compel discovery/deem RFA matters admitted. Caltrans requests sanctions of $1,250 be granted with respect to each motion. Caltrans’ counsel states their office has expended three hours in preparing each motion. (Choi Decl. ¶¶ 8-10.) Although Caltrans’ counsel does not bill hourly, they assert a reasonable minimum rate of $250 per hour.  Caltrans’ counsel also factors an anticipated additional hour for replying to any opposition and appearing at the hearing. (Choi Decl. ¶ 11.)

Given the nearly identical nature and relative simplicity of these motions, the Court finds Caltrans’ request to be excessive. While sanctions are in order, they should be granted in a lesser amount. The Court finds a base $1,000 assessed for attorney time in preparing the motions would be appropriate. The Court also finds that the $60 filing fee for each of the eight motions should be accounted for. Accordingly, the Court grants sanctions against Apex, Nowaid, and their counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,480 (($1,000) + (8 x $60) = $1,480).

--- 

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 

The People of the State of California acting by and through the Department of Transportation’s Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery and Deem Request for Admissions Matters Admitted came on regularly for hearing on April 5, 2024, 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 FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ARE GRANTED.

THE MOTIONS TO DEEM RFA MATTERS ADMITTED ARE GRANTED.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,480. SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL.

RESPONSES ARE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

SANCTIONS ARE TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, CALTRANS TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  April 5, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. Tavelman, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles