Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV08989, Date: 2024-04-29 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.

This is a Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act action arising from the Defendant’s alleged failure to repair Plaintiff’s vehicle in violation of the parties’ warranty agreement and Civil Code §§ 1790-1795.8. On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging (1) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(d), (2) violation of Civil Code §§ 1793.2(b), (3) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(a)(3), (4) breach of express warranty in violation of Civil Code § 1791.2(a) and 1794, and (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability in violation of Civil Code §§ 1791.1 and 1794.

On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to set one of Plaintiff’s Discovery. No opposition has been filed.

Initially, the Court notes that motions to compel discovery responses are required to be filed separately, with a separate filing fee paid for each discovery request for which further responses are sought. While the Court exercises its discretion in considering this single motion despite this violation of the rules, the Court orders that Plaintiff pay to the Court the additional filing fees within twenty days of the date of this order.

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] 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 under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).) A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]). There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Plaintiff provides the declaration of her counsel, who states that on or about September 22, 2023, Plaintiff served, by electronic mail, her Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; Requests for Admissions, Set One; and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (collectively, the “Discovery”) to the Defendant. (Nadri Bedwan Decl. ¶ 3; Exhibit 1.) The due date of the Discovery was October 24, 2023. (Id. ¶ 6.) Counsel further states that Plaintiff did provide Defendant with additional time to respond by November 7, 2023, but still did not receive a response. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff emailed Defendant regarding Defendant’s overdue responses; however, Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s email on November 27, 2023. (Id. ¶ 5-6; Exhibit 2.) As of filing the motion, Plaintiff has not received any responses from Defendant. (Id. ¶ 7.)

Here, the Court finds that more than 30 days have lapsed since Defendant was served with the Plaintiff’s Discovery. Plaintiff provided evidence that Defendant has not submitted any responses within 30 days from its issuance. Furthermore, based on the parties’ email communications, Plaintiff extended the time Defendant could respond to November 7. Yet despite being given an extension, Defendant failed to provide timely responses to Plaintiff’s Discovery. Thus, since Defendant has not provided verified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery request within 30 days of service, Plaintiff is entitled to pursue the motion. However, regarding Plaintiff’s RFAs, the Court notes that Plaintiff does not provide authority for compelling responses to her RFAs. Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(b), when a party fails to respond to RFAs, the propounding party must “move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted…” (CCP § 2033.280(b) (emphasis added).) Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion as it pertains to Plaintiff’s RFAs.

Plaintiff’s Motion to: Compel Defendant’s Verified Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One; Compel Defendant’s Verified Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One; Compel Defendant’s Verified Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to respond, without objection, to plaintiff’s form interrogatories with code-compliant, verified responses within 20 days of the date of this order.

Defendant is ordered to respond, without objection, to plaintiff’s special interrogatories with code-compliant, verified responses within 20 days of the date of this order.

Defendant is ordered to respond, without objection, to plaintiff’s requests for production of documents with code-compliant, verified responses within 20 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