Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC03887, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STLC03887 Hearing Date: January 5, 2023 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS
FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST
FOR SANCTIONS
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ronald Chaidez
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
ADMITTED;
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO FORM
INTERROGATORIES
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
(CCP §§ 2033.280, 2030.290, 94)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Ronald
Chaidez’s Motion to Deem Facts Admitted or, in the alternative, Compel Response
to Requests for Admission is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.
Plaintiff
Ronald Chaidez’s Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories is
DENIED. 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: None
filed as of December 23, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed
as of December 23, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On May 18, 2021, Plaintiff Ronald
Chaidez (“Plaintiff”), in propria persona, filed an action against Defendant Sandra
Chaiday (“Defendant”) for general common counts, intentional tort, general
negligence, and fraud. On June 29, 2021,
Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.
On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff
substituted R.E. Scott as counsel of record.
On October
14, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial
and continued the trial date to January 18, 2023. (10-14-22 Order.)
On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff
filed the instant Motions:
1.
Motion to Deem Facts Admitted or, in the alternative,
Compel Response to Requests for Admission and Request for Sanctions (“Motion to
Deem Admitted”).
2.
Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories and
Request for Sanctions (“MTC Form”).
No opposition has been filed to
either motion.
II.
Legal Standard
A.
Requests for Admission
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).)
B.
Form Interrogatories
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.)
C.
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)).
III.
Discussion
On September 28, 2022, Plaintiff’s
counsel served Defendant with form interrogatories and requests for
admission. (Scott Decl. pp. 1-2; Exs.
A-B.) Defendant failed to respond by the
deadline of October 30, 2022. (Ibid. at
p. 2.) Counsel sent a meet and confer
letter to defense counsel and requested responses to the discovery requests
within five (5) days. (Ibid.; Ex.
C.) On November 15, 2022, Plaintiff’s
counsel called defense counsel and was told that responses would be served no
later than November 22, 2022. (Ibid.;
Ex. D.) On November 28, 2022,
Plaintiff’s counsel again followed up by phone and email but did not receive
any response. (Ibid.; Ex. D.)
The Court finds that it cannot rule on the instant
Motions because Plaintiff’s discovery requests have exceeded what is permitted
in a limited civil action. In this case, Plaintiff propounded 16 Form Interrogatories and 22 Requests for
Admission, totaling 38 requests. (Scott
Decl. Exs. A-B.) 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 38 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 trial is currently scheduled for January 18, 2023, and the
instant Motions are scheduled for hearings on January 5 and 11, 2023. Under California Code of Civil
Procedure § 2024.020(a), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, any
party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings
on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or
before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the
action.” When a party notices a
discovery motion and sets the hearing after the discovery motion cut-off date,
the party does not have a right to have the motion heard. (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta
Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 1568, 1588 [holding
that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to hear a motion to
compel discovery responses after the motion cutoff date].) Additionally, § 2024.020(b) states “[e]xcept
as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial
date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.” In this case, motions concerning discovery
should be heard on or before January 3, 2023, fifteen (15) days before trial.
For these
reasons, Plaintiff’s Motions are DENIED and therefore, Plaintiff’s request for
sanctions as to each Motion is also DENIED.
IV.
Conclusion & Order
For the
foregoing reasons,
Plaintiff
Ronald Chaidez’s Motion to Deem Facts Admitted or, in the alternative, Compel
Response to Requests for Admission is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.
Plaintiff
Ronald Chaidez’s Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories is
DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for
sanctions is also DENIED.
Moving party to
give notice.