Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV00474, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00474    Hearing Date: October 11, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:      October 11, 2023                                         TRIAL DATE:  December 12, 2023

CASE:                                Windy Bailey v. All Locked Up Self Storage, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV00474

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Castaic All Locked Up

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            On August 28, 2023, Defendant, Castaic All Locked Up, filed these motions to compel Plaintiff, Windy Bailey, to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and to deem the Request for Admissions, Set Two, admitted against Plaintiff.  Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff.   Plaintiff is self-represented. 

The motions are unopposed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARDS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

If a party to whom interrogatories 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).)  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).)¿ Failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 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, 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).)  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

Defendant served Plaintiff with the at-issue discovery requests on June 14, 2023. To date, Plaintiff has not provided responses.  (See Walter Decls.)  Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and requests for admission are waived.  

As Defendant properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two.¿ In addition, Defendant is entitled to an order deeming admitted Request for Admissions, Set Two, against Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED.

Monetary Sanctions

            Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff.  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).)  The Court notes the brevity of Defendant’s motions. Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff in the amount of $303.30 representing 1 hour at defense counsel’s hourly rate and $123.30 in filing fees.

IV.       CONCLUSION 

The motions are granted. 

Plaintiff Windy Bailey is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two.  Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set Two, are deemed admitted against Plaintiff.

The request for sanctions is granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to pay, jointly and severally, sanctions in the amount of $303.30, to be paid to Defendant, by and through its counsel.

Discovery responses are to be provided and sanctions are to be paid within 30 days of this order.  

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   October 11, 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.