Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV23266, Date: 2024-12-23 Tentative Ruling

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition or reply has been filed.

This is an unlawful detainer action. On September 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative complaint (“Complaint”) against defendants Felipe Pena and Griselda Pena, (collectively “Defendants”).

On October 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed: (1) a motion to compel responses to special interrogatories (“SIs”); (2) a motion to compel responses to requests for inspection and copying (“RFPs”); and (3) a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted (“RFAs”) (collectively, the “Motions”).

The Court notes that the Motions are procedurally defective because they are directed to both Defendants. Motions to compel should be submitted as separate motions for each discovery device and directed separately to each defendant. Plaintiff has improperly joined six motions into three. The Court elects not to deny the Motions on this ground alone but requires Plaintiff’s counsel to pay the additional filing fees ($60.00 per each unfiled motion, for a total of $180.00) to the Court. Counsel is cautioned against misjoinder in the future.

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 5 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 SIs, RFPs and RFAs were served via FedEx overnight on September 25, 2024. (All Mots., Block Decl. ¶ 2, Exs. 1-2.) The deadline to respond was 5 days after service, plus two court days for overnight mail. (CCP §§ 2030.260 subd. (b), 2031.260 subd. (b), 2033.250, subd. (b) [discovery responses due 5 days from the date of service in unlawful detainer actions], CCP § 1013 subd. (a)(3)(B) [2 court days for overnight mail].) Thus responses to the discovery were due on October 2, 2024. As of the date of the hearing on these motions, there is no evidence before the Court that Defendants have responded to the discovery requests. Thus, the Motions are GRANTED.

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.)

Plaintiff requests sanctions for the motion to compel responses to SIs against Defendants in the total amount of $960.00 based upon counsel’s rate of $450/hour for: (1) 1.0 hour to prepare the motion; (2) 1.0 hour to appear at the hearing; and (3) $60.00 in filing fees. (All Mots., Sales Decl. ¶ 8.) The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the total amount of $960.00.

Plaintiff requests sanctions for the motion to compel responses to RFPs against Defendants in the total amount of $960.00 based upon counsel’s rate of $450/hour for: (1) 1.0 hour to prepare the motion; (2) 1.0 hour to appear at the hearing; and (3) $60.00 in filing fees. (All Mots., Sales Decl. ¶ 8.) As the time spent to appear at the hearing for this motion is duplicative of the other motions, a 1.0 hour reduction is appropriate. Thus, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $510.00.

Plaintiff requests sanctions for the motion to deem RFAs admitted against Defendants in the total amount of $960.00 based upon counsel’s rate of $450/hour for: (1) 1.0 hour to prepare the motion; (2) 1.0 hour to appear at the hearing; and (3) $60.00 in filing fees. (All Mots., Sales Decl. ¶ 8.) As the time spent to appear at the hearing for this motion is duplicative of the other motions, a 1.0 hour reduction is appropriate. Thus, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $510.00.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to FIs, is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to serve full, Code-compliant, verified responses, without objections within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to RFPs, is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to serve full, Code-compliant, verified responses, without objections within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s motion to deem RFAs admitted is GRANTED. The admissions are deemed ADMITTED as to truth.

Defendants are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff in the total amount of $1,980.00 within 20 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay the outstanding filing fees of $180.00 to the Court within 20 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