Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV02925, Date: 2024-12-17 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 and opposition papers. No reply has been filed.

This is a habitability action. On February 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative complaint (the “Complaint”) against Defendant Thelma Williams (“Defendant”), and Does 1 to 10, alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of warranty of habitability; (2) negligent maintenance of premises; (3) nuisance; (4) breach of quiet enjoyment; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On October 3, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to compel responses to request for production of documents (“RFPs”) and a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted (“RFAs”) (collectively, the “Motions”). Both Motions include requests for monetary sanctions.

A motion to compel an initial response can be made on the ground that a party did not serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand to produce. (Code Civil Procedure “CCP”) §§ 2030.290, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (a) [demand to produce]; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The discovering party can also make a motion to deem as admitted any unanswered requests for admission or any requests answered in a late or unverified response. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (b); CCP, § 2033.240, subd. (a) [RFA responses must be signed by responding party under oath]; Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [unsworn response to RFAs is treated like no response].) These requests are not automatically deemed admitted; the discovering party must make the motion. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

(1) Proper service (CCP §§ 2030.080, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.040 [demand to produce]); § 2033.070 [requests for admission])

(2) Expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after service or on date agreed to by parties (CCP §§ 2030.260, subds. (a), (b) [interrogatories], 2031.260, subds. (a), (b) [demand to produce] 2033.250, subds. (a), (b) [requests for admission]); and

(3) No timely response. (CCP §§ 2030.290 [interrogatories], 2031.300 [demand to produce] § 2033.280, subd. (b) [requests for admission])

A court must deny a motion to compel initial discovery where the discovery sought is outside the scope of discovery. (CBS, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19; CCP § 2017.010 [scope of discovery].)

The RFPs and RFAs were served via electronic service on July 17, 2024. (Both Mots, Sales Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A [discovery requests and proof of service].) The deadline to respond was 30 days after service, plus two court days for electronic service. (CCP § 1010.6 subd. (a)(3)(B)) Thus responses to the RFPs and RFAs were due on August 20, 2024. Plaintiff states that, as of the date of the filing of this Motion, Defendant has not responded to the discovery requests. (Both Mots., Sales Decl., ¶ 6.)

In the opposition, Defendant argues that the Motions and sanctions requests should be denied because she served Code-complaint response to both the RFPs and RFAs on December 3, 2024. (Both Opps., Oronsaye Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 1.)

The Court must impose monetary sanctions against anyone—party, nonparty, or attorney—who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion, unless it finds that the person to be sanctioned acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. (CCP §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand to produce]; Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404 [interrogatories and demand to produce].)

The Court must award sanctions when a party’s response to request for admissions is untimely, and the discovering party makes a motion to deem the requests admitted. (CCP, § 2033.280, subd. (c); Appleton, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at 635-636 [sanctions are mandatory].)

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

Even after a party provides discovery responses, a party can keep its motion on calendar and the court has authority to grant sanctions, even if it denies the motion to compel responses “as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part.” (Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 409.)

The Court finds that, although Defendant has since responded to the discovery requests, sanctions are warranted due to Defendant’s unexplained dilatory response. Defendant has failed to provide any justification for serving the discovery responses three months after the deadline. Furthermore, sanctions are mandatory for an untimely response to RFAs. (CCP, § 2033.280, subd. (c); Appleton, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at 635-636 [sanctions are mandatory].)

Plaintiff requests sanctions for the motion to compel responses to RFPs against Defendant in the total amount of $751.00 based upon counsel’s rate of $450/hour for: (1) 1.0 hour researching and preparing the Motion and accompanying documents; (2) 1.0 hour to review the opposition and prepare a reply; (3) 0.5 hours to attend the hearing on this matter; and (4) $76.00 in filing fees. (Both Mots., Sales Decl. ¶ 7.) As no reply was filed and the Court filing fees are only $60.00, a reduction of 0.5 hours plus the $16.00 filing fee difference is appropriate. Thus, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $735.00.

Plaintiff requests sanctions for the motion to compel responses to RFAs against Defendant in the total amount of $751.00 based upon counsel’s rate of $450/hour for: (1) 1.0 hour researching and preparing the Motion and accompanying documents; (2) 1.0 hour to review the opposition and prepare a reply; (3) 0.5 hours to attend the hearing on this matter; and (4) $76.00 in filing fees. (Both Mots., Sales Decl. ¶ 7.) As no reply was filed and the Court filing fees are only $60.00, a reduction of 0.5 hours plus the $16.00 filing fee difference is appropriate. Thus, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $735.00.

Defendant is ordered to pay a total amount of sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,470.00 within twenty days of the date of this order.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court