Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 24STCV04251, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE ON DEFENDANT FCA US, LLC

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE ON DEFENDANT FCA US, LLC

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE ON DEFENDANT FCA US, LLC

On May 7, 2024, Plaintiff Joon Huh filed these motions to compel Defendant FCA US, LLC to provide responses to Plaintiff First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents, and to have Requests for Admission, Set One, deemed admitted against Defendant. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Defendant.

If a party to whom interrogatories or 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).)

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); 2030290, 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).)

It is undisputed Plaintiff properly served Defendant with the at-issue discovery requests on March 15, 2024, and that Defendant did not timely serve responses. It is further undisputed Defendant served belated responses on May 1, 2024, and verifications for the responses on July 5, 2024. As Plaintiff concedes in the consolidated reply, the motions to compel are MOOT.

Plaintiff now requests a ruling on two issues: (1) deeming admitted the Requests for Admission, and (2) imposition of sanctions against Defendant for serving belated responses.

Plaintiff’s first request is mooted by Defendant’s belated service of verifications for the at-issue discovery requests. Unless the court determines the responding party to a motion “has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220,” it must order the admissions requests deemed admitted. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Defendant served verified responses to the Requests for Admission prior to the hearing for this motion. There is no basis to deem the admissions requests admitted against Defendant.

However, given that Defendant concedes having served untimely responses on July 5, 2024 (when verifications were served), the court finds sanctions are warranted. Indeed, in the context of untimely responses to admissions requests, sanctions are mandatory.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)¿ Defense counsel states in his declaration that Plaintiff’s discovery requests were received via electronic service and went unnoticed because of the increase of Song-Beverly actions. (Brezovec Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant establishes that the delay in responding to discovery is attributable to defense counsel alone. Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against defense counsel only in the amount of $590, consisting of one hour at plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate, and $240 in filing fees.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED. Counsel for Defendant FCA US, LLC is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $590 to Plaintiff, by and through Plaintiff’s counsel, within 30 days of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court