Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV06822 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Sanctions in the amount of $294 are imposed jointly and severally on Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel of Record. The sanctions are payable within 15 days after the date of this order.

Moving party is to provide notice by mail and electronically within one court day after the date of this order and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in April 2019. Plaintiff Karina Arreola filed her Complaint against Defendants Darnell Armstrong Nesby and AJR Trucking on February 22, 2021.

On December 9, 2022, Defendants filed their motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), Request for Production (“RPDs”), and to deem Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) admitted.

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).)

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).)

Defendants’ counsel testifies that she served written discovery requests on Plaintiff on August 30, 2022 with responses due by October 3, 2022. (Marque Decl., ¶¶2-3.) On October 10, 2022, Defendants’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the late responses. (Id., ¶4.) Defendants sent a second letter on October 24, 2022. (Id., ¶5.) On November 8, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel requested an extension which Defendants granted, setting a new deadline of November 18, 2022. (Id., ¶6.) After Plaintiff failed to provide responses, Defendants sent another meet and confer letter via email. (Id.) Plaintiff has not responded to the discovery requests or Defendants’ last email. (Id.)

Because Plaintiff has provided no responses to Defendants’ discovery requests, Defendants’ motions to compel responses to FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs are granted. The same analysis applies to Defendants’ request to deem their requests for admissions admitted. The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Defendants’ motions are admitted.

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.) Sanctions 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)). 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, Defendants’ requests for sanctions are denied with respect to the interrogatories and requests for production because these motions were not opposed. Sanctions with respect to the RFAs are granted because Plaintiff failed to file a timely response to the requests. Because the motion was unopposed, the Court grants Defendant $294 in sanctions for two hours of attorney time at a rate of $117 per hour and $60 in filing fees.