Judge: George F. Bird, Jr., Case: 22CMCV00473, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CMCV00473    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: B

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       BACKGROUND

The Complaint filed on November 1, 2022, alleges that Plaintiffs Pablo Sahagun and Yvette E. Rios (“Plaintiffs”) entered into a California Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions (“Purchase Contract”) with Defendant Castashau R. Tyson for the purchase of a property located at 15000 Downey Ave, #218, Paramount, CA 90723 (the “Property”). (Complaint, (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 6, 10.) After several delays, Plaintiffs allege that Castashau R. Tyson refused to close escrow because a replacement property had not been found. (Compl., ¶ 20.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Mardarious Tyson (“Defendant”) is the son of Castashau R. Tyson who knew about the Purchase Contract and was living at the Property and actively seeking an alternative residence. (Compl., ¶ 40.)

II.       MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AS ADMITTED

A. Motions filed February 17, 2023.  

Plaintiffs filed four separate discovery motions: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; and (4) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted. (collectively “Motions” or “Discovery Motions.”) Each individual motion requests sanctions against Defendant. Upon review of the Motions, each relies on the same set of background facts.

            B. No oppositions filed.

            Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b) an opposition to a discovery motion must be served and filed at least nine (9) court days before the hearing. Any oppositions to these Motions were due on March 3, 2023. As of March 9, 2023, five (5) court days before the hearing, no oppositions have been filed.

III.       LEGAL STANDARDS

            A. Motions to compel responses.

            A plaintiff may make a demand for production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) The demand for production of documents is not limited by number, but the request must comply with the formatting requirements in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030. A party may propound 35 specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action and any additional number of official form interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030, subd. (a)(1) - (a)(2).)

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of the demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.270, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.270, subd. (a) - (b).)

If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

The party who propounded the discovery request may bring a motion to compel and the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for production of documents or interrogatories, unless the court 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); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

B. Request to deem requests for admission as admitted.

A plaintiff may make a request for admission without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.020, subd. (b).) There is no limit to the number of requests for admission of the genuineness of documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.030, subd. (c).) The party making the request for admission is limited to 35 matters that do not relate to the genuineness of documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.030, subd. (a).)

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of the demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.260, subd. (a) - (b).)

If a party fails to respond to a request for admission, the party to whom the request is directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)  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, unless it finds that the party to whom the request for admission has been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b) - (c).)

IV.       DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs timely served all the discovery requests on Defendant on January 6, 2023. (Decl. of Amanda J. Potier, counsel for Plaintiffs, filed concurrently with each Motion ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs' special interrogatory request is below the statutory limit of 35, only totaling 18 requests. (Decl. of Amanda J. Potier filed concurrently with Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Exhibit A.) The form interrogatory requests answers to 30 questions. (Decl. of Amanda J. Potier filed concurrently with Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Exhibit A.) The request for production of documents seeks 26 groups of documents. (Decl. of Amanda J. Potier filed concurrently with Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Exhibit A.) The request for admission seeks answers to 21 questions. (Decl. of Amanda J. Potier filed concurrently with Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted Exhibit A.)

Defendant had 30 days to respond to the discovery requests. The response deadline was February 5, 2023, but Defendant failed to respond. (Decl. of Amanda J. Potier, counsel for Plaintiffs, filed concurrently with each Motion ¶ 7.) Defendant had contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel on January 30, 2023, stating that he was unaware of what was mailed to him, and Plaintiffs’ counsel responded that they were standard discovery requests. (Id. at ¶ 6.) On February 9, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted Defendant to inquire about responses and Defendant stated he was unsure what to do with the discovery requests. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Defendant that he should obtain counsel immediately and offered to extend the response deadline through February 13, 2023. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs’ counsel states that Defendant responded to the extension by stating “just do whatever it is [you] have to do.” (Ibid.) Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that as of February 17, 2023, no discovery responses have been received. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

Because Defendant failed to respond to the discovery requests, Defendant is compelled to respond to the Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objection, including objections based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300 subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) For interrogatories, the failure to respond also waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230. All requests for admission in Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted.

The court is required to award monetary sanctions against Defendant for the failure to respond to the requests for production of documents and the propounded interrogatories unless Defendant “acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Here, the Court finds imposition of sanctions unjust. It is clear from Defendant’s contact with Plaintiffs’ counsel on February 9, 2023, that the failure to respond to these requests was based on a failure to understand the requests and how to respond. When Plaintiffs’ counsel was provided this reasonable explanation for the failure to respond, Plaintiffs’ counsel offered to extend the response deadline a mere three days, two of which were weekends, for Defendant to find counsel, retain counsel, and get responses served to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ counsel also filed these Motions to compel responses 8 days after Plaintiffs’ counsel was informed Defendant did not understand the requests. Plaintiffs’ counsel is correct that the purpose of discovery sanctions is to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented. (Do v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1213 [135 Cal.Rptr.2d 855].) This Court finds that the imposition of sanctions against Defendant would not aid in preventing abuse nor correcting the problem.

“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).) Failure to respond to requests for admission does not give the court discretion to deny sanctions. (See Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 19, 31–32 [218 Cal.Rptr.3d 551, 561, 12 Cal.App.5th 19, 31–32] “… it is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve a timely response to a request for admission necessitates a motion to compel responses like the one filed here.”) The sanctions are limited to the “reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff requests $1,150.40 in sanctions for Defendant’s failure to respond to the requests for admission. Plaintiffs’ counsel states that this request is composed of a $61.65 filing fee, a $13.75 e-filing fee, 1.5 hours for drafting the Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted at a rate of $430 per hour, and an anticipated 1 hour for drafting a reply at a rate of $430 per hour. (Decl. of Amanda J. Potier filed concurrently with Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted ¶ 10.) Because Plaintiffs did not have to draft a reply, Plaintiffs will not be awarded 1 hour for drafting the reply. Plaintiffs will be awarded the filing fee, e-filing fee, and 1.5 hours of work at a rate of $430 per hour.

The total sanction imposed against Defendant is $720.40.

V.       CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Motions are GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Form Interrogatories, Set One; and Special Interrogatories, Set One, all without objection, within 20 days. The Court deems all requests for admission in Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted. Sanctions in the amount of $720.40 are imposed against Defendant payable to Plaintiffs within 20 days.

Dated: March 16, 2023                                               ___________________________________

Judge of the Superior Court