Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV08121, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08121    Hearing Date: February 16, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On March 7, 2022, plaintiff Erika Marroquin (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants E.V.R. Trucking, Inc. (“E.V.R.”) and Miguel Ramos Lucero (“Lucero”) for motor vehicle negligence arising out of Lucero’s negligent operation of a semi-tractor trailer truck that struck Plaintiff’s vehicle on March 11, 2020.

On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motions (1) to compel E.V.R.’s verified, objection-free responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) to compel E.V.R.’s verified, objection-free responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; (3) for an order deeming admitted the truth of facts and genuineness of documents by E.V.R in Requests for Admission, Set One; and (4) to compel E.V.R.’s verified, objection-free responses to Requests for Production, Set One. No oppositions have been filed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

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., § 2030.280, subd. (b).)  Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.280, subd. (a), 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

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., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

III.        DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel served the discovery requests on E.V.R. on August 22, 2022.  (Drozin Decl.-Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), ¶ 9, Ex. 3; Drozin Decl.-Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), ¶ 9, Ex. 3; Drozin Decl.-Requests for Admission (“RFA”), ¶ 9, Ex. 3.; Drozin Decl.-Request for Production (“RFP”), ¶ 9, Ex. 3.)  Responses were due by September 22, 2022. (Drozin Decl.-FROGs, ¶ 10; Drozin Decl.-SROGs, ¶ 10; Drozin Decl.-RFA, ¶ 10; Drozin Decl.-RFP, ¶ 10.)  E.V.R. never responded to the discovery requests or to Plaintiff’s September 26, 2022, correspondence wherein plaintiff’s counsel attempted to meet and confer with opposing counsel.  (Drozin Decl.-FROGs, ¶¶  11, 13, 14; Drozin Decl.-SROGs, ¶¶ 11, 13,14; Drozin Decl.-RFA, ¶¶ 11, 13, 14; Drozin Decl.-RFP, ¶¶ 11, 13, 14.)  Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and requests for admission are waived. 

As Plaintiff properly served the discovery requests and E.V.R. failed to serve responses, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling E.V.R. to provide responses to the at-issue Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production.  In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted against E.V.R. 

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff requests the imposition of monetary sanctions against E.V.R., E.V.R.’s counsel of record Steven R. Odell, and associated counsel Byron M. Purcell, in the amount of $3,816.75 for each motion filed for the total sum of $15,267.00.  ¿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., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED.  The Court notes that no oppositions were filed to the instant motions.  Therefore, sanctions are imposed against E.V.R., E.V.R.’s counsel Steven R. Odell, and associated counsel Byron M. Purcell, jointly and severally, in a total reduced amount of $3000.00 for 6 hours at plaintiff’s counsel’s rate of $500.00 and $267.00 in filing fees, to be paid within 30 days of service of this order.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motions are granted. 

          Within 30 days of the date of notice of this order, Defendant E.V.R. Trucking, Inc. is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to:

1)   Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One;

2)   Special Interrogatories, Set One;

3)   Request for Production of Documents, Set One,

          Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, is deemed admitted against Defendant E.V.R. Trucking, Inc. 

The Court orders Defendant E.V.R. Trucking, Inc., its attorney of record, Steven R. Odell, and associated counsel, Byron Purcell, to pay, jointly and severally, $3,267.00 in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff within 30 days of the date of notice of this order. 

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 16th day of February 2023