Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23GDCV02147, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV02147    Hearing Date: May 31, 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: 

Juan Diego Galvan (Plaintiff) brings this action against FCA, US LLC (Defendant) for claims arising out of the purchase of a 2020 Jeep Grand Cherokee (the Subject Vehicle). The Complaint alleges several causes of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendant’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. On May 24, 2024, Defendant filed untimely oppositions to each of the three motions. The Court, in its discretion, elects to consider Defendant’s oppositions.

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 November 29, 2023, Plaintiff propounded his interrogatories, RFPD, and RFA on Defendant via email upon their counsel. (Sogogyan Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. 1.) Discovery responses were due December 29, 2023 but Plaintiff received no responses. (Sogogyan Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that, despite having no obligation to do so, Plaintiff refrained from bringing the instant motions for a period of four months to allow Defendant time to respond.  (Sogogyan Decl. ¶ 11.) As of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff has received no responses. (Sogogyan Decl. ¶ 13.)

Defendants Opposition

Defendant states that they served written responses to each discovery request on May 22, 2024. (Dao Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Defendant acknowledges their responses are late and states that the failure to respond to this discovery was the result of a mistake in calendaring. (Dao Decl. ¶ 5.)

Given the representations of Defendant, the Court finds that the motions to compel initial responses are MOOT. Plaintiff’s motion to deem RFA matters admitted is DENIED by virtue of Defendant’s subsequent responses in substantial compliance with C.C.P. § 2033.220.

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, Plaintiff requests no sanctions in connection with the three motions to compel. Accordingly, the Court declines to grant sanctions at this time.

--- 

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 

Juan Diego Galvan’s Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery and Deem Request for Admissions Matters Admitted came on regularly for hearing on May 31, 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 PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ARE MOOT.

THE MOTION TO DEEM RFA MATTERS ADMITTED IS DENIED.  

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  May 31, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. Tavelman, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles