Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV18095, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

On January 10, 2024, Defendant AMCO Insurance Company (“AMCO” or “Defendant”), filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff 3884 Stoneridge LLC (“Stoneridge” or “Plaintiff”) to provide responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and a Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted against Stoneridge. AMCO seeks sanctions.

On April 9, 2024, Stoneridge filed an opposition to the Motion To Deem Admitted, arguing sanctions should be reduced because responses have been provided to AMCO’s Requests for Admission. Stoneridge did not file an opposition to the Motion to Compel.

On April 10, 2024, AMCO filed a reply to Stoneridge’s opposition acknowledging that Stoneridge filed untimely responses to the admission requests.

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).) A party moving to compel discovery responses under these statutory provisions is not required to meet and confer prior to filing the motion.¿ (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b); see also Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411 (Sinaiko) (citing Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906 for the proposition that “meet and confer” requirement “did not apply when propounding party sought order compelling responses to interrogatories and sanctions for responding party's failure to respond ‘within the statutorily permitted time’”).)¿¿¿

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).)

AMCO moves for an order compelling Stoneridge to provide responses to AMCO’s interrogatories and to deem admitted the admissions request.

The following is not in dispute. AMCO properly served Stoneridge with the at-issue discovery requests. With respect to the interrogatories, Stoneridge has not provided responses. Stoneridge’s objections to the interrogatories are therefore waived.¿ AMCO is entitled to an order compelling Stoneridge’s response to the interrogatories. With respect to the admission requests, Stoneridge served untimely responses before this hearing. The Motion to Deem Admitted is therefore moot.

AMCO requests sanctions against Stoneridge. Given the Court’s ruling, sanctions are warranted. In the context of admissions request, they are mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Stoneridge in the total amount of $915 consisting of three hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate and $120 in filing fees.

The unopposed motion to compel responses to Defendant AMCO Insurance Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

The request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $915 to Defendant, by and through their counsel.

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

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court