Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 20STCV49718, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Compton Unified School District (“CUSD”); Rigoberto Roman (“Roman”); and (3) Sydnee Pearson (“Pearson”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)

Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges five causes of action arising out of an employment relationship.

On August 1, 2023, Moving Defendants each filed three motions concerning discovery requests they propounded on Plaintiff (collectively, the “Motions”): (1) a motion to compel responses to the Requests for Production (collectively, the “RFP Motions”); (2) a motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (collectively, the “ROG Motions”); and (3) a motion deem the Requests for Admissions admitted (collectively, the “RFA Motions”).[1]

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2031.300, where there has been no timely response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Under CCP section 2030.290, subdivision (b), when a party directs interrogatories towards a party and that party fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The moving party need only show that the interrogatories were served on the opposing party, the time has expired to respond to the interrogatories and no responses have been served in order for the court to compel the opposing party to respond. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906.)

Under CCP section 2033.280, subdivision (a), where requests for admission are propounded on a party and that party fails to serve a timely response, that party waives any objection to the requests. (CCP § 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. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court must grant a motion to have admission requests deemed admitted where responses have not been served prior to the hearing, or, if such responses were served, they were not in substantial compliance with CCP section 2033.220. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (c).) It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated the motion. (Id.)

Moving Defendants sent the RFAs, RFPs, and ROGs at issue in the Motions on January 18, 2023. (See Declaration of Asheesh R. Mohindru (“Mohindru Decl.”) ¶ 3, Exhibit 1.) Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew from the representation on March 22, 2023 when the Court granted their motion to be relieved as counsel (the “Motion for Relief”). On June 2, 2023, Moving Defendants contacted Plaintiff regarding her outstanding discovery responses, and received no response to their inquiries. (See Mohindru Decl. ¶¶ 7-8, Exhibit 3.)

Plaintiff argues that she was not properly served with the discovery requests. Plaintiff’s former counsel declares that her office has no records of receiving Moving Defendants’ discovery requests served on January 18, 2023. (See Declaration of Samantha L. Ortiz (“Ortiz Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-6.)

Based on the evidence before the Court, Plaintiff’s former counsel informed Moving Defendants’ counsel that they had not received the January 18, 2023 discovery requests on March 1, 2023. (See Supp. Mohindru Decl., Exhibit 2.) On March 1, 2023, Moving Defendants’ counsel emailed Plaintiff’s former counsel and stated that it would make sense to table the issue of discovery responses pending the resolution of the Motion to be Relieved. (See id.) Although Moving Defendants’ separately contacted Plaintiff on June 2, 2023, it is not clear if Moving Defendants’ re-served the discovery requests.

Given the dispute over the receipt of the discovery requests and the fact that Plaintiff is no longer represented by counsel, the Court finds it appropriate to require Moving Defendants to re-serve Plaintiff with the relevant discovery requests. The Court therefore DENIES the Motions. After being served with the discovery requests, Plaintiff is required to comply with the relevant CCP rules, and Moving Defendants are not precluded from filing future motions to compel in the event that Plaintiff fails to submit responses. At the time of the hearing, the Court will discuss with the Parties the impact on discovery of the current trial date.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

[1] The Motions are largely based on the same underlying facts. The CUSD RFP Motion, however, concerns RFP, Set Two, while the Roman and Pearson RFP Motions concern RFP, Set One. The CUSD ROG Motion concerns Special Interrogatories, Set Two and Form Interrogatories Set Two, while the Roman and Pearson ROG Motions concern Form Interrogatories, Set One.