Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 21TRCV00050, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21TRCV00050 Hearing Date: August 29, 2022 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Monday, August 29, 2022
Department B Calendar No. 7
PROCEEDINGS
Dana Christensen v. Craig J. Christensen, et al.
21TRCV00050
Dana Christensen’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions
Dana Christensen’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions
Dana Christensen’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions
Dana Christensen’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set One, Admitted as to Defendant and Request for Sanctions
Dana Christensen’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Deposition and Request for Sanctions
TENTATIVE RULING
Dana Christensen’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Sets One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, by Defendant are granted, in part, and deemed moot, in part.
Dana Christensen’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set One, Admitted by Defendant is granted.
Dana Christensen’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Deposition is granted.
Dana Christensen’s requests for monetary sanctions are granted.
Background
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 25, 2021. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff has a 3/8 interest in real property described as 1520 Marcelina Ave. Torrance, CA 90501, APN 7355-023-024. Defendant does not recognize Plaintiff’s interest. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for: 1. Quiet Title; 2. Declaratory Relief.
Motions to Compel/Motion to Deem Admitted
CCP § 2030.290 states: “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply…The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (CCP § 2030.290(b).)
CCP § 2031.300 states: “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (CCP § 2031.300(b)).
CCP § 2033.280(b) states: “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).” (CCP § 2033.280(b))
The party noticing the deposition may move for an order compelling appearance at the deposition and production of documents, pursuant to the deposition notice, from the party deponent who fails to appear or produce materials requested in the deposition notice, and who has not served a valid objection under § 2025.410(a). CCP § 2025.450(a).
“The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).
On March 29, 2022, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Requests for Admissions, Set One, and Notice of Deposition upon Defendant. Defendant failed to serve responses to the subject written discovery requests. (Decl., Alana Anaya.) On June 17, 2022, Defendant filed with the Court responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Requests for Admissions. On July 7, 2022, Defendant filed with the Court responses to Form and Special Interrogatories. However, in reviewing the responses that were filed with the Court, the only valid proof of service shown was a proof of service of the responses to Request for Production of Documents (strangely attached with the responses to Requests for Admissions). Another purported proof of service was attached with the Request for Admissions, but this proof of service is defective as it does not indicate the address where service was purportedly effectuated. In addition, this proof of service indicates service by both mail, and personal service by delivery messenger, but no signature of the delivery messenger was set forth.
As to the motion to compel deposition, Defendant has failed to appear for his properly noticed deposition. Plaintiff provided a meet and confer declaration indicating attempts to contact the deponent about the failure to appear. (Decl., Anaya, ¶¶ 4-8.)
Thus, the motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, is granted. Defendant is ordered to serve responses within 10 days of this date. The motion to compel responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is deemed moot. Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted is granted. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s deposition is granted.
Sanctions
Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are granted. As to the Requests for Production of Documents, responses were only served after the motions were filed. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a). Further, as to the Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions admitted it is mandatory to impose monetary sanctions on a party and/or attorney whose failure to serve a timely response necessitated the filing of the motion. CCP § 2033.280(c).
Sanctions are awarded in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel in the total amount of $3,065.00. The hourly rate sought of $395 is a reasonable rate. The time allotted for preparation and appearance was 7 hours. Plaintiff was also awarded $300 in filing fees. Sanctions are payable within 30 days of this date
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.