Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 22STLC00575 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC00575, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC00575 Hearing Date: August 17, 2022 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ted Wass

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES;

DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Ted Wass’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Avi Amar’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Defendant Ted Wass’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission (Set One), propounded on Plai Admitted is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing issues discussed herein. Failure to obey the Court’s order may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or 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 August 15, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of August 15, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On January 27, 2022, Plaintiffs Avi Amar (“Avi”) and Alisa Amar (“Alisa”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed an action against Defendant Ted Wass (“Defendant”) arising out of a motor vehicle accident between Plaintiffs, on one hand, and Defendant, on the other hand, which allegedly took place on January 7, 2022.

On May 11, Defendant filed an Answer, as well as a Cross-Complaint against Moes 1 through 25 for (1) breach of written contract, (2) express indemnity, (3) total equitable indemnity, (4) partial equitable indemnity, (5) contribution and repayment, (6) declaratory relief, and (7) negligence.

On June 29, 2022, Defendant filed the following instant Motions as to Plaintiff Avi Amar:

(1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One) (“MTC”); and

(2) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission (Set One), Admitted (“Motion RFAs”).

On August 11, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of Non-Opposition, stating that Plaintiffs had not filed any oppositions to the instant Motions.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Special and Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production

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.)

The Court notes that Defendant impermissibly filed three separate requests for relief as a single motion. Combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke's Hospital (2003) 114 Cal. App. 4th 457,460; Govt. Code § 70617(a).) Here, Defendant paid a single filing fee for what should have been three separate motions. Therefore, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Avi Amar’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).

The Court also suggests that in filing future Motions, Defendant file all documents pertaining to a motion in a single document in order to avoid confusion regarding which documents are associated with which motion, particularly when several motions are filed at once. Additionally, Defendant should file the “Notice of Lodgment” in declaration form in support of each motion.

B. 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)).

On April 21, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff Avi with Requests for Admission, Set One. (Mot. RFAs – Sandler Decl. ¶ 2.) Responses were due on May 27, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 3.) On June 6, 2022, defense counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting responses to be served by June 15, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 4.) Defense counsel once again reached out to Plaintiff’s attorney on June 20, 2022, requesting responses to be served by June 27, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 5.) As of the date of the Motion, Defendant has not received any responses from Plaintiff Avi to the Requests for Admission. (Ibid. at ¶ 6.)

In the attached declaration, defense counsel refers to exhibits that support Defendant’s contention that the Requests were Admission were served on Plaintiff Avi. However, these exhibits have not been filed with the Court.

For this reason, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Motion to Deem Requests for Admission (Set One), served on Plaintiff Avi Amar, Admitted, to give Defendant an opportunity file the exhibits referenced in counsel’s declaration.

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)).

Defendant requests the following sanctions as to each Motion:

Defendant requests $935 in sanctions for Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One), as follows: four (4) hours in preparing the instant Motion at a rate of $175 per hour, one (1) hour to attend the hearing on the motion, and $60 for filing fees. (MTC – Sandler Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.)

Defendant requests $585 in sanctions for Motion to Deem Requests for Admission (Set One) Admitted, as follows: two (2) hours in preparing the motion at a rate of $175 per hour, one (1) hour to attend the hearing on the motion, and $60 for filing fees. (Mot. RFAs – Sandler Decl. at ¶¶ 7-8.)

Given that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery Requests is denied without prejudice, the request for sanctions for this Motion is also denied.

Given that Defendant’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is continued, the request for sanctions is also continued.

III. Conclusion & Order

Defendant Ted Wass’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission (Set One) Admitted, propounded on Plaintiff Avi Amar, is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing issues discussed herein. Failure to obey the Court’s order may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.