Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 21STCV41627 2023-02-15 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.

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and serve at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

Plaintiff’s currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges 10 causes of action arising out of an employment relationship.

On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed four motions concerning discovery propounded on Defendant Centurion Protective Service (“Centurion”) (collectively, the “Motions”): (1) a motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (General), Set Two (the “FROG Motion”); (2) a motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two (the “SPROG Motion”); (3) a motion to compel responses to Requests for Production, Set Two (the “RFP Motion”); and (4) a motion to deem Requests for Admission, Set Two admitted (the “RFA Motion”). The Motions contend that Centurion failed to provide timely responses to the discovery requests propounded by Plaintiff.[1]

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 2031.300, subdivision (b), 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 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).)

On October 26, 2022, Plaintiff served Centurion with the relevant discovery requests. (See Declarations of Matthew Gutierrez (“Gutierrez Decls.”) ¶ 3, Exhibit 1.)[2] On November 22, 2022, Centurion’s counsel requested an extension to serve responses by December 9, 2022. (Gutierrez Decls. ¶ 4, Exhibit B.) As of the December 16, 2022 filing of the Motions, no responses had been served. (Gutierrez Decls. ¶ 5.)

As they are unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motions. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Centurion is ordered to serve responses to the discovery requests discussed in the FROG, SPROG, and RFP Motions within 20 days of this order. The RFAs at issue in the RFA Motion are deemed admitted.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

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 do not request monetary sanctions.

[2] Each Motion is supported by a declaration submitted by Gutierrez. The Gutierrez Declarations relay identical facts but include attachments that are specific to the discovery request at issue in each Motion.