Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV26298, Date: 2024-07-10 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: Plaintiffs Leticia Y. Hernandez and Rodrigo Hernandez (“Plaintiffs”)

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

This case arises from a complaint filed by Plaintiffs against Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“Defendant”), alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

On April 8, 2024, Plaintiffs filed: (1) a Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (the “SIs Motion”); (2) a Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (the “FIs Motion”); (3) a Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (the “RFPs Motion”); and (4) a Motion for an Order Deeming the Truth of Matter in Requests for Admission (Set One) Admitted (the “RFAs Motion”) (collectively, “Discovery Motions”).

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).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) 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.)

Here, Plaintiffs served special interrogatories (“SIs”) upon Defendant on January 10, 2024. (Declaration of Ahmed H. Yousef in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to SIs, Set One (“Yousef SIs Decl.”), ¶ 5; Exh. 3.) Defendant did not serve responses to the SIs as of April 5, 2024. (Id., ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs now move for an order compelling Defendant to serve responses to the SIs.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ SI Motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to submit complete, Code-compliant and verified responses to the SIs, without objections, within 20 days of this order.

As noted above, 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).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) 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.)

Here, Plaintiffs served form interrogatories (“FIs”) upon Defendant on January 10, 2024. (Declaration of Ahmed H. Yousef in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to FIs, Set One (“Yousef FIs Decl.”), ¶ 5; Exh. 4.) Defendant did not serve responses to the FIs as of April 5, 2024. (Id., ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs now move for an order compelling Defendant to serve responses to the FIs.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ FIs Motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to submit complete, Code-compliant and verified responses to the FIs, without objections, within 20 days of this order.

If a party to whom requests for admission are served fails to provide a timely response, the party to whom the request was directed waives any objections, including based on privilege or the work product doctrine. (CCP § 2033.280(a).) The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted. (CCP § 2033.280(b).) The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion.

Here, Plaintiffs served requests for admission (“RFAs”) upon Defendant on January 10, 2024. (Declaration of Ahmed H. Yousef in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to RFAs, Set One (“Yousef RFAs Decl.”), ¶ 5; Exh. 2.) Defendant did not serve responses to the RFAs as of April 5, 2024. (Id., ¶ 6.) No opposition to the RFAs Motion was filed as of the date of this Order. Plaintiffs now move for an order deeming the truth of the matters in Plaintiffs’ RFAs as admitted.

When a party fails to serve a timely response to an inspection demand, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiffs served requests for production (“RFPs”) upon Defendant on January 10, 2024. (Declaration of Ahmed H. Yousef in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to RFPs, Set One (“Yousef RFPs Decl.”), ¶ 5; Exh. 1.) Defendant did not serve responses to the RFPs as of April 5, 2024. (Id., ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs now move for an order compelling Defendant to serve responses to the RFPs.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ RFPs Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to submit complete, Code-compliant and verified responses to the RFPs, without objections, together with all responsive documents, within 20 days of this Order.

“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 interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

“[T]he 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 inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated a motion for an order to deem the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request as deemed admitted. (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (c).); Cal. Rules of Court R. 3.1348(a) (the court can award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party seeking to compel discovery even though no opposition was filed, the opposition was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed).)

In connection with each of the Discovery Motions, Plaintiffs are seeking monetary sanctions in the amount of $500 for each day that Defendant does not fully comply with the Order. Because the Court is unable to discern the extent to which the requested sanctions reflect work actually performed, the Court finds no evidentiary basis for the granting of sanctions and therefore none are awarded.

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