Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV03057, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV03057    Hearing Date: June 14, 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.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify 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 argument is received.  

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

ALLEGATIONS: 

Tomas Cruz (Plaintiff) brings this action against Tuan Phi (Defendant) for claims arising out of an alleged December 26, 2023 incident. Plaintiff alleges he was hired to work on Defendant’s roof and that he was injured in so doing. Plaintiff alleges it was Defendant’s negligence in maintaining the roof that caused Plaintiff to fall.

Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff’s initial response to his Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for the Production of Documents (RFPD). Plaintiff also moves to deem matters in his Request for Admissions (RFA) matters admitted. Plaintiff has filed no opposition to these motions.

Defendant also requests a total of $9,740 in sanctions be granted in connection with the four 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).) 

II.                 MERITS

Request to Compel Responses

On January 29, 2024, Defendant propounded his Interrogatories, RFPD, and RFA on Plaintiff via email to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Babaian Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Discovery responses were due March 1, 2024, but Defendant received no responses. (Babaian Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3.) Defendant’s counsel states that they sent a meet and confer email inquiring about discovery after the deadline but received no response.  (Babaian Decl. ¶ 3.) Subsequent meet and confer attempts also went without response. (Babaian Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) As of the filing of this motion, Defendant has received no responses. (Babaian Decl. ¶ 6.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s unopposed motions to compel initial response to his Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPD are GRANTED.

Defendant’s unopposed motion to deem RFA matters admitted is 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).)

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.)

Further, 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, Defendant has drafted and filed four motions while Plaintiff has rendered no opposition. Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $2,615 as against Plaintiff and his counsel jointly and severally. This amount reflects 5 hours of attorney work at a rate of $475 per hour, as well as the $60 filing fee for each motion. (Babaian 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 

Tuan Phi’s Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery and Deem Request for Admissions Matters Admitted came on regularly for hearing on June 14, 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 DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ARE GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO DEEM RFA MATTERS ADMITTED IS GRANTED.

FURTHER RESPONSES DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS.   

SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,615. SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HIS COUNSEL JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY.

SANCTIONS TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  June 14, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. Tavelman, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles