Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV46634, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV46634 Hearing Date: October 6, 2023 Dept: 27
Tentative Ruling
Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27
HEARING DATE: October 6, 2023 TRIAL DATE: January
22, 2024
CASE: Suzanne Stanford-Kraft v. City of Los Angeles
CASE NO.: 20STCV46634
MOTION
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
MOTION
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MOTION
TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff
Suzanne Stanford-Kraft
RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition
I. BACKGROUND
On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff, Suzanne Stanford-Kraft, filed
these motions to compel Defendant, City of Los
Angeles, to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, and
to deem the Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted against Defendant. Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant.
The motions are unopposed.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY
If a party to
whom interrogatories and inspection demands were directed fails to serve a
timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel
responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b),
2031.300, subd. (b).) If a party to whom requests for admission are directed
fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order
that the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)¿ Moreover, failure to timely serve
responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§
2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a), 2033.280, subd. (a).)
Monetary Sanctions
Code of Civil
Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose
discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes
(without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial
justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive
response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification
making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2023.010.)
If sanctions are
sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice
specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the
type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and
authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount
of any monetary sanction.
If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made
or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection
demands, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . unless it finds that
the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that
other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c),
2031.300, subd. (c).) In the context of a motion to deem requests
for admission admitted, it is mandatory that the court impose monetary
sanctions on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely
response to the request necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2033.280, subd. (c).)
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff served
Defendant with the at-issue discovery requests on January 16, 2023. However, to date, Defendant has not provided
responses. (See Nalbandyan Decls.)
Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and requests for production
are waived.
As Plaintiff
properly served the discovery requests and Defendant failed to serve responses,
the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order directing Defendant to
provide responses to Set Two of Plaintiff’s
Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of
Documents.¿ In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming admitted
Request for Admissions, Set One, against Defendant. Accordingly, the motions are
GRANTED.
Monetary
Sanctions
Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant. Given that the Court has granted these
motions, sanctions are warranted. Indeed, in the context of requests for
admission, sanctions are mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) However, the
notices of motion do not indicate against whom sanctions are sought nor in what
amount. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) Accordingly, the Court imposes reduced
sanctions against Defendant in the sum of $630 consisting of 1 hour at Plaintiff’s
counsel’s hourly rate and $180 in filing fees.
IV. CONCLUSION
The unopposed motions are granted.
Defendant City of Los Angeles is ordered to provide verified,
objection-free responses to Set Two of Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories,
Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff’s
Request for Admissions, Set One,
is deemed admitted against Defendant.
The request for sanctions is granted. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions in the
amount of $630, to be paid to Plaintiff, by and through her counsel.
Discovery responses are to be provided and sanctions are to
be paid within 20 days of this order.
Moving party to give notice.
Dated: October 6, 2023 ___________________________________
Kerry
Bensinger
Judge
of the Superior Court
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.