Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV47267 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV47267, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47267 Hearing Date: September 12, 2022 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

September 12, 2022 [originally set for 9/9/2022]

21STCV47267

-Motion to Compel Responses by Defendant Barone to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions filed by Plaintiff Efrain Garcia

- Motion to Compel Responses by Defendant Barone to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Request for Sanctions filed by Plaintiff Efrain Garcia

DECISION

The motions are denied as moot.

Sanctions in the amount of $810 are imposed against Defendant Barone and his counsel's firm. Sanctions are payable within 20 days after the date of this order.

Moving party is to provide notice.

Background

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in March 2021. Plaintiff Efrain Garcia filed his Complaint against Defendant Jason Skweres on December 28, 2021.

On March 9, 2022, Plaintiff added Federico Barone as a defendant in this action.

On July 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed his motions to compel Defendant Federico Barone’s initial responses to SROGs and RPDs.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Plaintiff propounded written discovery on Barone on March 30, 2022. To date, Plaintiff has not received any response from Barone, nor has he received any communications about the discovery responses.

Opposing Arguments

Barone and Skweres served responses without objection to Plaintiff’s discovery requests between August 22-27, 2022. Barone argues Plaintiff’s request for sanctions are excessive.

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.

Sanctions

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).)

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to SROGs and RFPs.

Here, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied because Barone responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests before the date of the hearing on this matter. Plaintiff’s claims are supported by counsel’s declaration. Plaintiff’s discovery responses were originally due on May 5, 2022. (Blair Decl., ¶14.) No extension was requested and the responses were only provided recently. (Id., ¶15.)

With respect to sanctions, the Court finds that Barone has misused the discovery process by failing to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,560 per motion at an hourly rate of $500 and supports the request with a declaration from Counsel. Defendant argues that the late responses are late through no fault of their own because their defense counsel changed twice. Nevertheless, Defendant’s discovery responses were filed four months after the original due dates in April 2022 and Defendant made no attempt to contact Plaintiff regarding an extension. The Court finds that Defendant’s failure to file timely responses constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. The Court awards Plaintiff’s requested sanctions but in the amount of $810 total (1.5 hours of time at $500 per hour plus $60 filing fee) which is what is appropriate for simple duplicative motions written by experienced counsel.

******************************************************************************

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

September 12, 2022

21STCV47267

-Motion to Deem Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions to Defendant Barone, Set One, Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions

-Motion to Deem Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions to Defendant Skweres, Set One, Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions

-Motion to Compel Responses from Defendant Skweres to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions

-Motion to Compel Responses from Defendant Skweres to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions

-Motion to Compel Responses from Defendant Skweres to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions

DECISION

All five motions are denied as moot.

Sanctions in the amount of $310 are imposed jointly and severally against Defendant Barone and his counsel's firm. Sanctions are due within 20 days after the date of this order.

Sanctions in the amount of $1,740 are imposed jointly and severally against Defendant Skweres and his counsel's firm. Sanctions are due within 20 days after the date of this order.

Background

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in March 2021. Plaintiff Efrain Garcia filed his Complaint against Defendant Jason Skweres on December 28, 2021.

On March 9, 2022, Plaintiff added Federico Barone as a defendant in this action.

On July 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed his motions to compel Defendant Federico Barone’s and Defendant Jason Skweres’s responses to discovery.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Plaintiff propounded written discovery on Barone on March 30, 2022. To date, Plaintiff has not received any response from Barone, nor has he received any communications about the discovery responses.

Opposing Arguments

Barone and Skweres served responses without objection to Plaintiff’s discovery requests between August 22-27, 2022. Barone and Skweres argue Plaintiff’s request for sanctions are excessive.

Reply Arguments

In reply, Plaintiff argues that sanctions are appropriate because Defendant’s responses were more than three months late.

Legal Standard

Compelling Responses to Interrogatories

Compelling Response to Demand for Production of Documents

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

Discussion

Plaintiff’s motions to compel are supported by counsel’s declaration. Barone’s and Skweres’s discovery responses were originally due on May 5, 2022 and April 19, 2022 respectively. (Blair Decl., ¶12, 14.) As of the filing of the instant motions, Barone and Skweres have not filed responses or contacted Plaintiff to request an extension or provided any responses to discovery. (Id., ¶15, 17.) Barone filed an Answer on May 6, 2022 but failed to file responses to discovery. (Id., ¶16.) Without these responses, Plaintiff has been unable to obtain the information necessary to pursue his claim. (Id., ¶19.) Barone and Skweres have since filed responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

Plaintiff seeks to deem RFAs admitted by both Defendants. Where there is no response to RFAs, a court may deem RFAs admitted. Because Defendants submitted responses, though late, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.

Plaintiff also seeks to compel responses to SROGs, FROGs, and RPDs from Defendant Jason Skweres. Because Skweres submitted responses, Plaintiff’s motions must be denied.

Sanctions

With respect to sanctions, the Court finds that Barone and Skweres misused the discovery process by failing to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests timely. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,560 per motion at an hourly rate of $500 and supports the request with a declaration from Counsel. However, since the motions were substantially the same and simple, the figure must be adjusted.

The Court awards sanctions as follows. For the four motions relating to Defendant Skweres, the Court imposes sanctions on Skweres and his counsel's firm totaling $1,740 (based on 3 hours of attorney time at $500 per hour plus $240 in motion fees). For the one motion relating to Defendant Barone, the Court imposes sanctions on Barone and his counsel's firm in the amount of $310 (.5 hours of attorney time at $500 per hour plus the $60 motion fee).