Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV08781, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV08781    Hearing Date: February 28, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

          On March 3, 2020, Plaintiffs Fred Wai Hung Yue and Tzu-Fei Chu (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants PC Palaces Inc. (“PC Palaces”), Zuong Ha, Ruben Esparza, Phu Mang Phang (“Phang”), David Aguilar, Willim Tom, and Gertrude Tom for injuries arising from a shooting in a restaurant/karaoke bar. On July 19, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) assault, (2) battery, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) negligence, (5) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, and (6) false imprisonment.

          On August 4, 2022, Defendant PC Palaces served Requests for Admission, Set Two, Requests for Production, Set Two, and Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set Two. (All Taylor Decl. ¶ 3, Exhibits A.) As of the date of filing this Motion, Plaintiff Tzu-Fei Chu has not served responses to any of the discovery responses. (All Taylor Decl. ¶ 4-5.) On October 17, 2022, Defendants PC Palaces and Phang filed these motions compelling responses to the discovery.

          Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to these motions.

Deem Admitted

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)  The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it 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, subd. (c).)

As a preliminary matter here, Defendants have erroneously attached the Special Interrogatories (Set Two) to the declaration instead of the Requests for Admission (Set Two). Thus, Defendants are ordered to provide proof of service for Requests for Admission (Set Two).

Defendants have put forward a declaration that Plaintiff failed to respond to Requests for Admissions (Set Two). Although Defendant’s motion asks the Court to compel Plaintiff’s responses, the appropriate motion for a Requests for Admission is a motion to deem the responses admitted. Thus, so long as Plaintiff has not served responses prior to the hearing date, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to deem admitted Requests for Admission (Set Two).

          Compel Responses

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to interrogatories and requests for production, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 subd. (b), 2031.300 subd. (b).) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

          As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendants erroneously combined the motion to compel Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories into one motion when they should have been filed as two separate motions. Thus, Defendants are ordered to pay the $60 filing fee for the additional motion.

As Defendants have put forward evidence that the interrogatories and requests for production were properly served and that Plaintiff has failed to file a response, Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the Form Interrogatories (Set Two), Special Interrogatories (Set Two), and Requests for Production (Set Two) are GRANTED.

Monetary Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300 subd. (c).)  Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Defendant requests sanctions be imposed in the amount of $812.50 for each motion (1.5 hours at $200 per hour preparing the motion, 0.5 hours at $225 per hour reviewing the motion, 1.5 hours reviewing and responding to Plaintiff’s opposition at $200 per hour, and 0.2 hours for the motion at $200 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee). (All Taylor Decl. ¶ 6.) However, as no opposition was filed and the discovery motions are largely duplicative of each other and the previously filed motions to compel responses to Set One of discovery, the court awards sanctions in the reduced amount of $400.00 for each of the three motions (1.7 hours at counsel’s hourly rate of $200, plus a $60 filing fee for each motion). 

          Defendant’s motion to deem Requests for Admissions (Set Two) admitted is GRANTED.

          Defendant’s motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two), Special Interrogatories (Set Two), and Requests for Production (Set Two) are GRANTED.

          Plaintiff Tzu-Fei Chu is ordered to provide code-compliant, non-objection responses within twenty (20) days of this order.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED.  Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1200.00 total to be paid within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

Defendants’ are ordered to pay the $60 filing fee for the combined motion that should have been filed separately.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

        Dated this 28^th day of February 2023