Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 24AHCV00019, Date: 2024-08-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24AHCV00019    Hearing Date: August 13, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

[The court notes that at the time of this posting the Plaintiff has filed an ex parte that may affect

this tentative]

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     August 13, 2024                                  TRIAL DATE:  No date set.

CASE:                         Izabella Papagelis v. Martha Hernandez  

CASE NO.:                 24AHCV00019

(1) Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
(2) Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
(3) Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
(4) Hearing on Motion for Order Deeming RFA, Set One, as Admitted

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Martha Hernandez

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Izabella Papagelis

SERVICE:                             Filed May 30, 2024 (1-3)
Filed July 10, 2024 (4)

OPPOSITION:                     None filed.

REPLY:                                 N/A

RELIEF REQUESTED

            On May 30, 2024, Defendant Martha Hernandez moved for three orders to compel the response of Plaintiff Izabella Papagelis to (1) Form Interrogatories—Set One (and $585 in sanctions), (2) Special Interrogatories—Set One (and $322.50 in sanctions), and (3) Production of Documents—Set One (and $322.50 in sanctions).

            On July 10, 2024, Defendant moved for an order deeming admitted the truth of facts in Requests for Admission—Set One (and $497.50 in sanctions).

BACKGROUND

            On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motor vehicle and negligence complaint alleging personal injury and property damage, arising out of an October 28, 2022 car accident allegedly caused by Defendant. Defendant asserts the facts of loss have not been established yet and liability is in dispute. Discovery was propounded on Plaintiff, but Plaintiff failed to respond at all. Defendant has no other means of obtaining the information and documents relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, so Defendant has made the subject motions for court orders.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s motions to compel responses to Special Interrogatories—Set, Form Interrogatories—Set One, Requests for Production of Documents—Set One are GRANTED.

Defendant’s request to deem the truths as admitted for the Requests for Admission—Set One is GRANTED.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,727.50.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a responding party fails to serve timely responses to interrogatories, the responding party waives all objections, including those based on privilege and work product protection, and the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. (C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(a)-(b); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

If a party fails to serve timely responses to requests for production of documents, the responding party waives all objections, including those based on privilege and work product and “[t]he party making the demand may move for an order compelling [a] response to the demand.” (C.C.P. § 2031.300(a)-(b).) Additionally, the Court “shall” award sanctions for failure to respond. (C.C.P. § 708.020.)

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed “fails to serve a timely response,” the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(a).) This section provides that “[t]he 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”. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(b).) Additionally, it provides that the court “shall make this order” unless it finds that the party to whom the requests have been directed has served a proposed response in substantial compliance with section 2033.220 before the hearing on the motion. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(c).)

DISCUSSION

            On March 26, 2024, Defendant served Special Interrogatories—Set One, Form Interrogatories—Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents—Set One on Plaintiff. Verified responses were due April 29, 2024 for these three requests. On May 22, 2024, Defendant served its first set of Requests for Admission on Plaintiff. A verified response was due June 26, 2024 to this request. Plaintiff has not responded to the subject discovery requests, or any discovery in the action. Her attorneys have no provided reasonable justification.

            On May 30, 2024, Defendant filed the current motions to compel responses to (1) Form Interrogatories—Set One (and $585 in sanctions), (2) Special Interrogatories—Set One (and $322.50 in sanctions), and (3) Production of Documents—Set One (and $322.50 in sanctions). On July 10, 2024, Defendant moved for an order deeming admitted the truth of facts in Requests for Admission—Set One (and $497.50 in sanctions). The four motions are made on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses and that the sanction requests represent reasonable attorney fees.

Plaintiff has not filed opposition to the motions.

The Court has no information with respect to whether any verified discovery responses have been provided by Plaintiff since the time the motions were filed. Under the assumption that no such verified responses have been served, the Court will grant all the motions, and will issue an order compelling Plaintiff to respond to the written discovery served upon them (as articulated above) no later than 60 days after service of this order, or such other date as this Court may specify at the hearing on these motions.

The Court will order Plaintiff, her attorneys, or both, to pay sanctions in the total amount of the four sanction amounts requested. That is, (1) $585 for the form interrogatories, (2) $322.50 for the special interrogatories, (3) $322.50 for the production of documents request, and (4) $497.50 for deeming the truth of the requests for admission. The total amount is $1,727.50. The Court finds these amounts to be a reasonable sanction for “no response” motions to compel with respect to Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories—Set One is GRANTED.

Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories—Set One is GRANTED.

Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Requests for Production of Documents—Set One is GRANTED.

The court orders Plaintiff sixty days after service of this order, to comply with this order. Plaintiff is to serve code-compliant, objection free, verified responses, along with responsive documents for the following: Special Interrogatories—Set One, Form Interrogatories—Set One, Requests for Production of Documents—Set One.

Defendant’s request to deem the truths as admitted for the Requests for Admission—Set One is GRANTED. The court grants Defendant’s motion to deem Plaintiff to have admitted the truth of the matters in the Requests for Admissions—Set One.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,727.50 against Plaintiff. Sanctions are payable to Defendant within 30 days of service of this order.

Dated:   August 13, 2024                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org