Judge: Fumiko Wasserman, Case: 23CMUD00292, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMUD00292 Hearing Date: November 16, 2023 Dept: B
23CMUD00292
REC DEVELOPMENT INC vs ROBERT TAYLOR Discovery Motions 10.16.2023
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I. BACKGROUND
This action arises from an unlawful
detainer dispute between Plaintiff, REC Development Inc., and Defendant, Robert
Taylor. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is in possession of the property
located at “835 W ROSECRANS AVE UNIT 300, GARDENA CA 90247” (the “Property”).
(Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 3(a).) Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to
pay rent in the amount of $9,772.00. (Compl. ¶ 12.)
A non-jury trial was commenced on June 16, 2023, and judgment was
entered in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant brought a motion for a new trial which
was granted on July 26, 2023. The new trial date was set for August 8, 2023.
Pursuant to an oral stipulation, the trial was continued to October 2, 2023. On
this date, the parties indicated they had a settlement in place, but requested
another continuance of the trial date and discovery motions.
II. ARGUMENTS
Defendant seeks to compel responses to Defendant’s form
interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of
documents and to have the court deem Defendant’s requests for admissions as
admitted. The motions are all based on
the same operative facts.
Robin Chavarria, a Staff Attorney for Defendant, states that she
served Plaintiff’s counsel with the underlying discovery requests at issue on
July 28, 2023. (Decl. of Robin Chavarria, ¶ 2.) As of August 6, 2023, Robin
Chavarria declares that no responses had been received. (Decl. of Robin
Chavarria, ¶ 5.)
Defendant seeks $225.00 in sanctions as to the Motion to Deem
Requests for Admission as Admitted and $450.00 each on the Motion to Compel
Responses to Form Interrogatories, Motion to Compel Responses to Request for
Production of Documents, and Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories
for a total of $1,575.00 in sanctions. Defendant also seeks to continue the
trial date if any of the Motions are granted.
Plaintiff did not file any written oppositions to the Motions. Discovery motions in unlawful detainer
proceedings are governed by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1347, which
states, “Any opposition to the motion and any reply to an opposition may be
made orally at the time of hearing or in writing as set forth in (c).”
III. LEGAL
STANDARDS
A. Requests for production of documents
If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production of
documents, the party waives any objection, including one based on privilege or
on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)
The Court may relieve a party of this waiver if (1) “The party has subsequently
served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210,
2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280” and (2) “The party's failure to
serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable
neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a)(1) and (2).)
“Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a
monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against
any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling,
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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)
B. Interrogatories
If a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories, the party
“waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section
2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based
on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing
with Section 2018.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The Court
may relieve a party of this waiver if (1) “The party has subsequently served a
response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220,
2030.230, and 2030.240” and (2) “The party's failure to serve a timely response
was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a)(1) and (2).)
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7
(commencing with Section 2023.010) 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)
C. Requests for admission
If a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the
party “waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege
or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section
2018.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) The Court may relieve a
party of this waiver if (1) The party has subsequently served a response that
is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230”
and (2) “he party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of
mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280,
subd. (a)(1) and (2).)
“The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness
of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be
deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing
with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) “The court
shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for
admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a
proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial
compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a
monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the
party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to
requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280,
subd. (c).)
IV.
DISCUSSION
A. Discovery reopened after the motion for new trial was granted
The traditional time limits set for
completion of discovery do not apply to unlawful detainer proceedings except
“as provided in Sections 2024.050 and 2024.060.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.040,
subd. (b)(1).) Discovery in unlawful detainer proceedings “shall be completed
on or before the fifth day before the date set for trial.” (Ibid.)
Code of Civil Procedure, section
2024.050, which explicitly applies to unlawful detainer proceedings, states “On
motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery
proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the
initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.
This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)
While this language seems to
indicate that a motion to reopen discovery is necessary after a new trial date
has been set, The Supreme Court of California has interpreted this language and
determined that “in the case of a mistrial, order granting a new trial, or
remand for a new trial after reversal of a judgment on appeal” “discovery is
reopened and the cutoff date is calculated based on the date initially set for
the new trial.” (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th
245, 247 [Interpreting Code of Civil Procedure, section 2024, subdivision (a)
“which was repealed to facilitate nonsubstantive reorganization of the rules
governing civil discovery. [33 Cal.L.Rev.Comm. Reports 809 (2004)]” and is
identical to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2024.050, subdivision (a)].)
Here, the order granting a new trial
was issued on July 26, 2023. Discovery was thus reopened, and the deadlines are
to be calculated in accordance with the new trial date.
B. The underlying discovery requests were timely served
The new trial date, when the motion
for new trial was granted, was set for August 8, 2023. “[D]iscovery in these
proceedings shall be completed on or before the fifth day before the date set
for trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.040, subd. (b)(1).) The fifth day before
an August 8, 2023, trial is August 3, 2023.
Robin Chavarria, a Staff Attorney
for Defendant, states that she served Plaintiff’s counsel with the underlying
discovery requests at issue on July 28, 2023. (Decl. of Robin Chavarria, ¶ 2.)
Plaintiff had five days to respond to the underlying discovery requests. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (b) [Responses to interrogatories due five days
after service]; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (b) [Responses to requests
for production of documents due at least five days after service]; Code Civ.
Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (b) [Responses to requests for admission due at least
five days after service].) Responses were thus due on August 2, 2023. The
underlying discovery requests were timely.
C. The Motions are timely
In an unlawful detainer proceeding,
“a discovery motion may be made at any time upon giving five days' notice.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.8.) The traditional civil litigation deadline that
discovery motions must be heard no later than the 15th day before the date set
for trial, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure, section 2024.020,
subdivision (a), does not apply. Code of Civil Procedure, section 2024.040, subdivision
(b)(1), exempts unlawful detainer proceedings from this deadline.
The Motions were served on Plaintiff
on August 7, 2023. The hearing date of November 16, 2023, and the prior hearing
dates of August 29, 2023, and October 2, 2023, all provide more than the
required 5 days’ notice. The Motions are thus timely.
D. Defendant may compel responses, deem requests
for admissions as admitted, and collect sanctions
Because Plaintiff failed to respond
to timely discovery requests, Defendant my compel responses to Defendant’s
requests for production of documents, form interrogatories, and special
interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) Defendant
may also seek to have any requests for admission that are not responded to
deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)
As to sanctions, the Court shall
impose sanctions on a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
compel responses to requests for production of documents, form interrogatories,
and special interrogatories unless the party subject to sanctions acted with
substantial justification or the court finds circumstances that would make the
imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c); Code
Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate why
responses to the underlying discovery requests were not provided. The Court
does not find that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification or that the
circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust. For a motion to deem
requests for admission as admitted, the court shall award sanctions on any
party “whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission
necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Here,
Plaintiff’s failure to respond necessitated the present motion.
V. CONCLUSION
The
Court exercises its discretion and rules as follows: The Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Motion to
Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, and Motion to Compel
Responses to Special Interrogatories are GRANTED. Plaintiff is compelled to
respond to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Form
Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories, without objection and without
exercising the right to produce writings in response to the interrogatories,
within 5 days of this order. The Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as
Admitted is GRANTED. Sanctions are granted in the amount of $1,575.00 payable
by Plaintiff to Defendant within 5 days of this order. The trial date is
CONTINUED to November 30, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. in Department B of the Compton
courthouse. The discovery deadlines are not continued or reopened by continuing
trial.