Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV00571 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV00571, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00571 Hearing Date: February 3, 2023 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

February 3, 2023

21STCV00571

-Motion to Deem Plaintiff’s RFAs (Set One) Admitted by Defendant Isidro Gonzalez Granados and Request for Monetary Sanctions

-Motion to Compel Defendant Granados’ Responses to Request for Production (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions filed by Plaintiff

-Motion to Compel Defendant Granados’ Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions filed by Plaintiff

DECISION

If Plaintiff has not paid four motions fees, Plaintiff shall do so prior to the hearing.

All the motions are denied as moot.

Sanctions in the amount of $510 are imposed jointly and severally on Defendant and Defendant’s Counsel of Record. Sanctions are payable within 20 days after the date of this order.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

Background

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in January 2019. Plaintiff Francisco Chavez filed his Complaint against Defendants Isidro Gonzalez Granados and Gale/Triangle, Inc.

On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel Defendant Isidro Gonzalez’s responses to written discovery and to deem RFAs admitted.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Plaintiff propounded discovery requests on Defendant Granados on October 14, 2021 and has not received Granados’ responses to date. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions.

Opposing Arguments

Granados argues that the motions are moot because he served responses on May 13, 2022 and served verifications on January 23, 2023.

Reply Arguments

Plaintiff argues that even if the motions are moot, Plaintiff is entitled to sanctions.

Legal Standard

Compelling Responses to Interrogatories

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.

Compelling Response to Demand for Production of Documents

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.

Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

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

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).)

Discussion

Granados’ counsel represents that he served responses to Plaintiff’s request for written discovery on May 13, 2022 and later served verifications on January 23, 2023. (Jeffrey Decl., ¶¶5-6.) Plaintiff does not dispute that Granados has now served verified responses. Therefore, these motions are denied as moot.

Discovery sanctions may not be imposed under Section 2023.030, even together with Section 2023.010, absent another provision of the Discovery Act that authorizes the imposition of sanctions. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 500.) Sanctions for with respect to the interrogatories and the request for production are only authorized against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses. (See Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c)). Here, sanctions with respect to the FROGs and RPDs, sanctions are denied because the motions to compel responses were not opposed. Defendant only points out that the motions are moot.

Sanctions with respect to the motion to deem requests for admissions admitted are mandatory 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).) Here, Granados served RFAs on May 13, 2022, but neglected to provide verifications until January 23, 2023. Unverified responses to discovery requests are tantamount to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Thus, Granados did not serve timely RFA responses. Sanctions are mandatory here because Granados failed to serve timely responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs.

With respect to the RFA motion, Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record in the amount of $725.

Plaintiff’s request for compensation for 8 hours of travel time is excessive. The Court awards $510 in sanctions for 2 hours of attorney time and filing fees.