Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV12389, Date: 2023-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

On August 23, 2023, Plaintiffs, Adam Luna Villa, Monica Jasmine Villa, and Jasmin Estrella Villa, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Adam Luna Villa, filed these motions to compel Defendant, Los Angeles Dodgers LLC, to provide responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Sets One and Two, and to deem Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Defendant. Plaintiffs seek sanctions against Defendant.

On December 21, 2023, the parties appeared remotely. Defendant said the discovery had been served. The Court continued that matter to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to confirm service. The Court includes the prior tentative below for the sake of completeness.

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).) 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).)

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 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).)

Plaintiffs move for an order compelling Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, and to deem admitted the requests for admissions.

There is no dispute Plaintiffs properly served the at-issue discovery on Defendant on August 24, 2022, and December 5, 2022. However, Defendant argues the motions should be denied because this matter had been related to 15 other cases with only one set for trial.[1] In light of the pending matters, Defendant represents the parties agreed to stay discovery in each matter until a trial date is set. And a trial date has not been set in this matter. Defendant further represents that complete and verified responses to all the discovery requests will be served on Plaintiffs’ counsel prior to the hearing.

Defendant does not provide any support for the existence of the discovery “stay/hold” agreement between the parties. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ counsel counters that no such agreement was reached. However, given Defendant’s representation that discovery responses will be provided prior to the hearing for these motions, the Court finds the motions are moot.[2] Neither party has informed the Court one way or the other whether discovery has been provided.

Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant. Notwithstanding the Court’s ruling, the Court finds sanctions are warranted. Indeed, in the context of requests for admissions, sanctions are mandatory, even when responses are untimely provided. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Defendant in the amount of $840, representing one hour at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hourly rate and $240 in filing fees. Had Defendant informed the Court discovery responses were provided and this motion was unnecessary, the result here might be different.

The request for sanctions is granted. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $840 to Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, within 30 days of the date of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The cases were previously deemed related. On May 10, 2023, the Court in the low number case deemed this, and other cases, unrelated and severed them.

[2] The Court will reconsider this ruling if Defendant does not serve verified responses prior to the hearing.