Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV13942, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV13942, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13942 Hearing Date: August 30, 2023 Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE: August 30, 2023 TRIAL DATE: December 2, 2023

CASE: Antonio Martins v. Gibran S. Lee

CASE NO.: 22STCV13942

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Antonio Martins

RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition

I. BACKGROUND

On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff, Antonio Martins, filed these motions to compel Defendant, Gibran S. Lee, to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, 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 November 2, 2022. Defense counsel requested an extension to provide responses. However, to date, Defendant has not provided responses. (See Setareh Decls.) Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and demand 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 One 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.

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant. Given the Court has granted these motions, sanctions are warranted. Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Defendant in the amount of $2,040 representing 3 hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate and $240 in filing fees.

IV. CONCLUSION

The motions are granted.

Defendant Gibran S. Lee is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Set One of Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted against Defendant.

The request for sanctions is granted. Defendant is ordered to pay sanction in the amount of $2,040, to be paid to Plaintiff, by and through his 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: August 30, 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.