Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 22STLC05554 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff The Hinds Law Group, APC’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff The Hinds Law Group, APC (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendants California Company (“California Company”) and Frontline Medical Associates (“Frontline”), (collectively “Defendants”).

On September 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to the Complaint, correcting Defendant California Company’s name to California Company, LLC.

On December 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery Responses as to Defendants California Company and Frontline (“Motion”). Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,051.65. (Mot. p. 2.)

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order (1) deeming the truth of matters specified in Request for Admission, Set One, served on Defendants on October 25, 2022, admitted and (2) compelling Defendants California Company and Frontline to respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One, served on October 25, 2022. (Mot. p. 2.) Alternatively, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter default against Defendants. (Ibid.)

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.)

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).)

The Court notes that Plaintiff has impermissibly filed four separate motions 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; Gov. Code § 70617(a).) Here, Plaintiff paid a single filing fee for what should have been four separate motions – two motions to deem requests for admission admitted and two motions to compel responses to form interrogatories.

The Court also notes that Defendants have not been properly served with the discovery requests or the moving papers. Plaintiff indicates that discovery has been served on Defendants via email to defense counsel’s email at “mbrownelaw@gmail.com.” (Mot. pp. 35, 58.) The moving papers have also been served via email to defense counsel’s email at “mbrownelaw@gmail.com.” (Ibid. at p. 62.) However, the email address listed for defense counsel on Defendants’ Answer is “dmbrownelaw@gmail.com.” Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not properly served Defendants with the discovery requests or the Motion and its supporting documents.

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is DENIED.

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 the instant Motion is denied, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is also DENIED.

Plaintiff The Hinds Law Group, APC’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.

[1] Proof of Service filed with the moving papers indicates that Defendants were served via electronic transmission to their attorney’s email address “mbrownelaw@gmail.com.” (Mot p. 62.) However, the email address listed for defense counsel on the Defendants’ Answer is “dmbrownelaw@gmail.com.”