Judge Jill Feeney, Case 20STCV01314 2022-10-25 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.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant Hollywood Chamber of Commerce’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 20 days after the date of this order.

This is an action for negligence, premises liability, liability for dangerous condition of public property, and public employee liability arising from a trip and fall incident which took place in July 2019. Plaintiff Anna Nguyen filed her Complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, and the Hollywood Historic Trust on January 10, 2020

On June 30, 2022, Defendant the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce (“HCC”) filed the instant motions to compel initial responses to Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and to deem Requests for Admissions admitted. Plaintiff has not opposed these motions.

HCC originally propounded its FROGs, RPDs, and RFAs on Plaintiff on April 12, 2022. Responses were originally due on May 13, 2022. To date, HCC has not received any responses to its discovery 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 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).)

Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a). ) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and 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), 2033.280(c).)

HCC is entitled to orders compelling Plaintiff’s responses to FROGs. Defendant supports its claims with a declaration from Counsel. HCC propounded discovery requests on Plaintiff on April 12, 2022. (Esposito Decl., ¶4.) After receiving no responses, HCC’s counsel sent multiple emails to Plaintiff’s counsel’s office inquiring about the responses. (Id., ¶¶5-7.) To date, Plaintiff has not served any discovery responses or responded to HCC’s counsel’s emails. (Id., ¶7.) Because Plaintiff has not provided responses to HCC’s discovery requests, the motion is granted.

The same analysis applies to HCC’s request to deem their requests for admissions admitted. The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in HCC’s motions are admitted.

With respect to sanctions, the Court finds that Plaintiff has misused the discovery process by failing to respond to HCC’s discovery requests. HCC requests $1,072.50 in sanctions total for 4.5 hours of attorney time drafting the three motions (two from today and one from yesterday) plus 1 hour appearing for the motion at a rate of $195 per hour. HCC’s request is granted.