Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV09134, Date: 2024-12-12 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 has been filed. Any opposition was required to have been filed at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 1005, subd. (b).)

This is a premises liability action. Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell, suffering injuries, at premises owned and operated by Defendant Azteca Import LLC (“Defendant”). On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence; and (2) premises liability.

On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff served first sets of form interrogatories (“FIs”), special interrogatories (“SIs”), requests for production (“RFPs”), and requests for admission (“RFAs”) on Defendant. The parties agreed on a response deadline of September 2, 2024. (All Motions, Keshmiri Decl. ¶ 5.) Based on Defendant’s nonresponse to the discovery, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to (1) compel responses to FIs, Set One, (2) compel response to SIs, Set One, (3) compel responses to RFPs, Set One, and (4) deem RFAs, Set One, admitted (collectively, the “Motions”).

First, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not filed proofs of service showing service of the four motions on Defendant. Second, while all four motions request monetary sanctions, the requests for sanctions are not properly noticed. (CCP, § 2023.040 [“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.”].)

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. (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.) To establish this ground, a movant must show:

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

(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) [admission requests]); and

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

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].)

Plaintiff provides proof of service of: (1) FIs, Set One, (2) SIs, Set One, (3) RFPs, Set One and (4) RFAs, Set One. (All Motions, Keshmiri Decl., Exs. 1 [discovery and proof of service].) Plaintiff provides evidence that the agreed upon deadline for the initial responses has passed. (All Motions, Keshmiri Decl., Exs. 2) Plaintiff further provides evidence that Defendant never responded to the discovery that Plaintiff served on June 17, 2024. (All Motions, Keshmiri Decl., ¶ 6.) Last, a brief review shows that the first set of discovery contains requests within the scope of discovery for this action because the interrogatories, production requests, and admission requests at issue involve issues germane to the claims before the Court.

Thus, if at or before the hearing, Plaintiff provides proofs of service for all four Motions which show they were properly served on Defendant, the Motions will be GRANTED.

The Court must impose monetary sanctions against anyone—party, nonparty, or attorney—who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion. As relates to interrogatories and production requests, the Court can deny sanctions if it finds that the person to be sanctioned acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust, a standard not applicable to admission requests. (CCP, §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand to produce], 2033.280, subd. (c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404 [interrogatories and demand to produce]; Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [admission request sanctions are mandatory; no discretion].)

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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

The failure to respond to authorized methods of discovery is a sanctionable discovery abuse. (CCP, §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2023.030, subd. (a).) Such an abuse has occurred here through Defendant’s nonresponse to: (1) FIs, Set One, (2) SIs, Set One, (3) RFPs, Set One and (4) RFAs, Set One. As discussed above, however, Plaintiff did not properly notice the request for sanctions. (CCP, § 2023.040.) Thus, the requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Contingent upon confirmation of proper service of the Motions upon Defendant, the Court will make the following Orders:

Plaintiff Judith Sandoval’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Defendant Azteca Import LLC is ordered to serve full, Code-compliant, verified responses, without objections, within 20 days of this Order.

Plaintiff Judith Sandoval’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Defendant Azteca Import LLC is ordered to serve full, Code-compliant, verified responses, without objections, within 20 days of this Order.

Plaintiff Judith Sandoval’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED. Defendant Azteca Import LLC is ordered to serve full, Code-compliant, verified responses and production, without objections, within 20 days of this Order.

Plaintiff Judith Sandoval’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One, Admitted is GRANTED. The truth of matters specified in RFAs are deemed admitted.

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