Judge Jill Feeney, Case 19STCV44944 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.

Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at SSCdept30@LACourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.

Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.

If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.

If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.

Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted (Set Three) and to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Three), Special Interrogatories (Set Two), Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production of Documents (Set Three) and Supplemental Request for Production (Set One) filed by Defendant Laszlo Enterprises, Inc.

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in December 2017. Plaintiff Joaquin Rodriguez Carmona filed his Complaint against Defendants Christina M. Rohrer, Laszlo Enterprises Inc., Laszlo Enterprises, Inc. dba Patty Wagon Charter, and Patty Wagon Charter on December 16, 2019.

Defendant Laszlo Enterprises, Inc. (“Laszlo”) filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), and Requests for Production (“RPDs”) on January 19, 2023. Laszlo also moves to deem Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) admitted.

Laszlo propounded FROGs (Set Three), SROGs (Set Two), RPDs (Set Three), Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One), Supplemental RPD (Set One), and RFAs (Set Three) on April 27, 2022. Laszlo has not received Plaintiff’s responses to date.

Plaintiff argues that combining discovery motions is improper. Plaintiff also argues that discovery is closed and the motions are untimely. Lastly, Plaintiff argues that he served code compliant responses to the discovery requests.

Laszlo argues that the motions are not untimely because the Court extended the motion cutoff date to comport with the new trial date of May 3, 2023. Laszlo also argues that Plaintiff attached discovery responses from older discovery requests, not the latest set of requests.

Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.260, subd. (a).)

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc section 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that needs be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

A party waives its objections to a discovery request when it does not serve a timely response to the request. (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.290(a)) Even if objections do not need to be verified, objections will be waived if the responding party “fails to file any response within the statutory time period.” Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 658.

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Where there has been no timely response to requests for admissions, a “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 (commencing with section 2023.010).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

Objections to interrogatories and demands for production are not required to be verified because “objections are legal conclusions interposed by counsel, not factual assertions by a party.” (Blue Ridge Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 339, 345.)

A court may not award monetary sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. §§2023.010 and 2023.030 standing alone or read together. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 500.) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c)).) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to deem requests for admissions admitted if a party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed failed to serve a timely response to the request for admission. (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280(c).)

Laszlo moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to SROGs, FROGs, and RPDs. Laszlo also moves to deem RFAs admitted. The Court initially notes that these motions should have been separately filed. Laszlo must pay filing fees for five additional motions.

Laszlo’s counsel testifies that he propounded FROGs (Set Three), SROGs (Set Two), RPDs (Set Three), Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One), Supplemental RPD (Set One), and RFAs (Set Three) on April 27, 2022. (Flynn Decl., ¶8.) After receiving no response, counsel sent meet and confer emails and letters requesting responses. (Id., ¶10.) Laszlo has not received Plaintiff’s responses to date. (Id., ¶10.)

Plaintiff argues that the motions are untimely because the Court’s August 22, 2022 order provided that the discovery motion cut-off date would comport with the August 30, 2022 trial date. However, Defendant argues that the order states the motion cut-off date would comport with the May 3, 2023 trial date.

“Fact discovery and motion cut-off dates remain with the original trial date of 08/30/2022. Expert discovery and motion cut-off dates to comport with new trial date of 05/03/2023.”

Although the minute order references Laszlo’s intention to file discovery motions, Laszlo has not moved to reopen discovery. Therefore, the fact discovery cutoff date was to comport with the August 30, 2022 trial date. The motion cutoff date was August 15, 2022. Fact discovery is now closed and Laszlo’s motion is untimely.