Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV04422, Date: 2024-10-11 Tentative Ruling

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant HAYWORTH VILLAS HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION (“Defendant”)

On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for (1) breach of governing documents; (2) negligence; (3) nuisance; (4) trespass; (5) violation of Corporations Code section 7510; and (6) declaratory relief.

On July 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed the following discovery motions: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (the “SIs Motion”); (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (the “FIs Motion”); (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (the “RFPs Motion”); and (4) Motion to Deem Requested Admissions Admitted (the “RFAs Motion”) (collectively, “Discovery Motions”).

Defendant filed a late opposition on October 2, 2024, and Plaintiff filed a reply on October 4, 2024. The Court may consider late-filed papers where insufficient prejudice arises from consideration of the opposition. (Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697; Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1288.) The Court may also overlook a party’s failure to file motion papers in accordance with the applicable deadline and to resolve the matter on the merits. (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 162, 168.) Thus, the Court exercises its discretion and considers Defendant’s late-filed opposition.

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.)

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.

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, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFPs”), Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFAs”), Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FIs”) and Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SIs”) (collectively, “Discovery Requests”) on May 20, 2024. (Declarations of Celine Toubia in support of the RFPs Motion, RFAs Motion, FIs Motion and SIs Motion, ¶ 2.) Defendant failed to serve responses to the Discovery Requests as of July 24, 2024. (Id., ¶ 4.)

In its opposition, Defendant’s counsel declares that due to her own inadvertence, Defendant failed to provide responses to the Discovery Motions, but that Defendant has now provided responses, without objections, to the Discovery Requests. (Declarations of Leah Berry in support of opposition to the Discovery Motions, ¶ 5.)

Accordingly, since responses to the Discovery Requests have now been served, Plaintiff’s Discovery Motions are MOOT. If the responses are not otherwise complete or Code-compliant, Plaintiff has forty-five days from the date of the hearing to file a Motion to Compel Further.

Nevertheless, the question of sanctions still remains before the Court. “[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407.) Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses…the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.” (Id., at pp. 408-409.) This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.” (Id., at p. 408.) If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.” (Id., at p. 409; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a) [“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”].)

“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).) It is therefore 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).)

Here, Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,160. in connection with each of the Discovery Motions, representing 7.2 hours of attorney time for each motion at a rate of $300/hour. Although Defendant’s counsel admits fault for Defendant’s failure to serve responses, the Court finds no substantial justification or any other circumstance that would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Given the duplicative nature of the motions, however, the Court exercises its discretion and reduces the monetary sanctions to $600 for each motion, representing 2 hours of attorney time at a rate of $300/hour. Defendant’s counsel is therefore ORDERED to pay the total amount of $2,400 in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff and her counsel within 30 days 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