Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STCV39473, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.  **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 21STCV39473    Hearing Date: February 21, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES;

                                    DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED;

                                    REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox

RESP. PARTY:         Roy Mayes, Jr.

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES;

DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox’s Motions to Compel Discovery Responses, specifically Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions as to each Motion is also DENIED.

Plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted (Set One) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          Filed on February 2, 2023.                                    [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of February 15, 2023.                     [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On October 26, 2021, Plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Roy Mayes, Jr. (“Defendant”) for breach of contract and common counts arising out of an alleged attorney-client retainer agreement.

On December 17, 2021, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On March 23, 2022, the case was reclassified to limited jurisdiction and reassigned to Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse.  (3-23-22 Minute Order.)

On December 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Request for Admissions (Set One) Admitted (“Motion re: RFAs”) and Request for Sanctions, set for hearing on February 23, 2023.

On December 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed the following additional Motions:

1)     Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions (“MTC: Form”), set for hearing on February 21, 2023;

2)     Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions (“MTC: Special”), set for hearing on February 21, 2023;

3)     Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) and Request for Sanctions (“MTC: RFP”), set for hearing on February 22, 2023.

Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (“Opposition to MTC: RFP”) on February 2, 2023.

No reply has been filed.

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

A.    Motions re: Discovery

Under Code of Civil Procedure 2033.280(b), failure to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner allows the requesting party to “move for an order that…the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted” by the party that failed to respond.  The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court, “unless [the court] 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).)  Since such motion is in response to failure to respond, there is no requirement to meet and confer prior to moving to deem the requests for admission admitted.  (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007), 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.). By failing to timely respond, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2033.280(a).)

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260(a).)  If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).)  Once compelled to respond, the party waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)  There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020(a), 2030.290.)  No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260(a).)  If a party to whom requests for production of documents is directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c).)  The party also waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)  There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2024.020(a), 2031.300.)  No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Plaintiff has filed three (3) separate motions compelling responses to discovery, specifically compelling responses to form and special interrogatories and request for production of documents, as well as a motion to deem request for admissions admitted.  Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents on that basis that he objects to the lawsuit and has not waived his right to arbitration.  (Oppos. ¶ 3.)

The Court notes that, Plaintiff’s discovery requests exceed what is permitted in a limited civil action.  In this case, Plaintiff propounded 16 form interrogatories, 20 special interrogatories, 6 requests for production, and 9 requests for admission, totaling 51 requests.  (Mot. re: RFAs – Fox Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A; MTC: Special – Fox Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A; MTC: Form – Fox Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A; MTC: RFP – Fox Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A.)  However, Code of Civil Procedure § 94(a) limits discovery in limited jurisdiction actions to “any combination of 35 of the following: interrogatories with no subparts…, demands to produce documents or things…, requests for admission with (no subparts).”  Plaintiff’s 51 requests exceed what is permitted in this limited civil action and the Court will not choose which requests to eliminate for Plaintiff’s discovery requests to come into compliance with the rule of 35.

            The Court also notes that each Notice of Motion contains the wrong address for the courthouse where the hearings will take place as it lists the address for the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, instead of the Spring Street Courthouse.

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Discovery and Deem Request for Admissions Admitted are DENIED.

B.    Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone because of that conduct.  Misuse of discovery includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d)).

Furthermore, courts are obligated to impose monetary sanctions in cases where a “failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (Ibid.)  Sanctions are calculated based on “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”  (Ibid. § 2023.030(a)).

Given that Plaintiff’s Motions are denied, Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions as to each Motion are also DENIED.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox’s Motions to Compel Discovery Responses, specifically Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions as to each Motion is also DENIED.

Plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted (Set One) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.