Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 22CHCV01157, Date: 2024-08-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01157    Hearing Date: August 27, 2024    Dept: F43

Ahmed El Masri vs. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Northridge Business Centre Owners Association and The Emmons Company

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

An order that the truth of the matters in Defendant’s Request for Admissions be deemed admitted against Plaintiff Ahmed El Masri, as well as sanctions.

RULING: Motion is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On February 14, 2024, Defendant The Emmons Company (Defendant) served Requests for Admissions on Plaintiff Ahmed El Masri (Plaintiff). Defendant had not received any responses by the deadline of March 19, 2024, so on March 25, 2024, Defendant’s counsel wrote to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel informing them that the responses were past due and to provide responses within 15 days. Plaintiff never provided responses to the discovery.

Defendants filed this motion to deem requests for admissions admitted on April 10, 2024. No opposition has been filed. Defendant also requests sanctions in the amount of $2,175.00 against Plaintiff.

Requests for Admissions

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.” (CCP § 2033.010.)  “Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared…” (CCP § 2033.250(a).)

If a party to whom requests for admissions are served fails to provide a timely response, the party to whom the request was directed waives any objections, including based on privilege or the work product doctrine. (CCP § 2033.280(a).) The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted. (CCP § 2033.280(b).)

Plaintiff has not served any responses to Defendant’s requests for admission. Defendants move for an order deeming the requests for admission admitted. The Court grants Defendants’ motion.

Sanctions

CCP § 2023.030 authorizes the Court to issue sanctions against a party engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. Failure to respond to discovery, evasive responses, and objections lacking substantial justification are “misuses of the discovery process.” (CCP § 2023.010, subd. (d)-(f).)

Defendant has requested sanctions in the amount of $2,175.00 against Plaintiff. The amount is based on Defendant’s counsel anticipating that he will spend 3 hours preparing this motion, 3 hours reviewing the opposition and preparing the reply, and 3 hours at the hearing on the motion at $235.00 an hour, plus the $60 filing fee. (Ross Decl., ¶ 6.)

No opposition or reply was filed, so 3 hours may be subtracted from counsel’s anticipated total. Additionally, the hearing on this motion will be held at the same as the hearing on Defendants’ motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, and sanctions were assessed for the hearing through that motion, so no sanctions will be assessed for the hearing in connection with this motion. That means that an additional 3 hours will be subtracted from the total. That would leave the remaining as 3 hours at $235 an hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee, for a total of $765.00 in sanctions.

Defendants’ request for sanctions against Plaintiff is granted in the reduced amount of $765.00.

ORDER

1.      1. Defendants’ motion to deem requests for admissions admitted is granted.

2.      2. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses within twenty (20) days.

3.      3. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the total amount of $765.00 for this motion. Plaintiff is ordered to pay these sanctions to Defendant’s counsel within twenty (20) days.

4.      4. Moving party to give notice.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Northridge Business Centre Owners Association and The Emmons Company

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff Ahmed El Masri’s responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, as well as sanctions.

RULING: Motion is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On February 14, 2024, Defendant The Emmons Company (Defendant) served Judicial Council form interrogatories on Plaintiff Ahmed El Masri (Plaintiff). Defendant had not received any responses by the deadline of March 19, 2024, so on March 25, 2024, Defendant’s counsel wrote to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel informing them that the answers were past due and to provide responses within 15 days. Plaintiff never provided responses to the discovery.

Defendants filed this motion to compel discovery responses to the form interrogatories on April 10, 2024. No opposition has been filed. Defendant also requests sanctions in the amount of $2,175.00 against Plaintiff.

Form Interrogatories

The propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and monetary sanctions if a party to whom the interrogatories are directed fails to respond. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2030.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) Responses to interrogatories are due within thirty days from the date of service of the interrogatories. (CCP §§ 2030.260(a), 2016.050.) The responding party waives any objections to the interrogatories by failing to serve responses in a timely manner. (CCP § 2030.290(a).)

Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories. Defendants have moved for an order compelling Plaintiff’s response to these Interrogatories. The Court grants Defendants’ motion to compel responses to the Form Interrogatories.

Sanctions

CCP § 2023.030 authorizes the Court to issue sanctions against a party engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. Failure to respond to discovery, evasive responses, and objections lacking substantial justification are “misuses of the discovery process.” (CCP § 2023.010, subd. (d)-(f).)

Defendant has requested sanctions in the amount of $2,175.00 against Plaintiff. The amount is based on Defendant’s counsel anticipating that he will spend 3 hours preparing this motion, 3 hours reviewing the opposition and preparing the reply, and 3 hours at the hearing on the motion at $235.00 an hour, plus the $60 filing fee. (Ross Decl., ¶ 6.)

No opposition or reply was filed, so 3 hours may be subtracted from counsel’s anticipated total. Additionally, the hearing on the motion would likely take an hour at most, so another 2 hours may be subtracted from Defendant’s total. That would leave the remaining as 4 hours at $235 an hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee, for a total of $1,000.00 in sanctions.

Defendants’ request for sanctions against Plaintiff is granted in the reduced amount of $1,000.00.

ORDER

1.      1. Defendants’ motion to compel responses to the form interrogatories is granted.

2.      2. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses within twenty (20) days.

3.      3. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the total amount of $1,000.00. Plaintiff is ordered to pay these sanctions to Defendant’s counsel within twenty (20) days.

4.      4. Moving party to give notice.