Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV23928, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23928    Hearing Date: October 18, 2023    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Hearing Date:                         Wednesday, October 18, 2023

Case Name:                             Dixon v. Los Angeles Dodgers LLC, et al.

Case No.:                                22STCV23928           

Motion                                  (1) Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One, Admitted and Request for Sanctions of $860; and

                                                (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions of $860.

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Gregory Page Dixon

Responding Party:                   Defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC

Notice:                                    OK

Ruling:                                    (1) The Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One, Admitted is DENIED as moot. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions against Defendant in connection with this motion in the reduced amount of $400, payable within 30 days of this order.

(2) The Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve verified responses, without objection, within 30 days of this order. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions against Defendant in connection with this motion.

Plaintiff to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND

            On October 4, 2023, Plaintiff Gregory Page Dixon (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC (“Defendant”) alleging the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) premises liability; (3) assault; (4) battery; (5) false imprisonment; (6) violation of “federal civil rights,” (7) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; and (8) violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (Civil Code § 52.1). Plaintiff alleges he was a Dodgers game when he unlawfully assaulted and battered by off-duty security employees and that officers of the Los Angeles Police who had observed the altercation did not to assist Plaintiff to prevent any foreseeable harm.

            On September 27, 2022, Plaintiff propounded, inter alia, Request for Admissions, Set One (“RFAs”) and Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPDs”), on Defendant. However, Defendant failed to respond at all to these discovery requests.

            On August 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to deem RFAs admitted and motion to compel responses to the RPDs.

            On October 4, 2023, Defendant filed its oppositions to the instant motions.

DISCUSSION

Applicable Law

A.    Compelling Initial Discovery

Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, the party to whom the request for production is made shall serve the original response to the request, unless otherwise agreed to or ordered. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260(a).) A party requesting the production of documents may seek an order compelling a response when there has not been a timely response to the request for production. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300.) Moreover, where a party fails to timely respond to a production request, the delinquent party waives all objections to production and the requesting party may seek a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)

The court “shall” impose monetary sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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., § 2031.300(c).)

B.     Deeming Admissions Admitted

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(b).)  The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(a)(1)-(2).)  The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

Application to Facts

            Plaintiff served his first set of RFAs and RPDs on Defendant on September 27, 2022 by email. (diDonato Decls., ¶ 2 and Exhs. 1.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to respond at any time within the statutory deadline or beyond it. (Id., ¶ 3.)

In opposition, Defendant contends that the parties had agreed that discovery in this action was not an immediate priority when other related cases had a pending trial date. (Opposition re: RFAs at pg. 2; Opposition re: RPDs at pg. 2.)  Defendant further argues that the instant motions are moot because Plaintiff has been served with verified responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs and RPDs on October 3, 2023. (Robie Decls. ¶ 2, Exhs. 1.)

Upon review of these verified responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs and RPDs, the Court finds that the former responses substantially comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220. However, the latter responses improperly include objections despite having been waived due to Defendant’s failure to timely respond to Plaintiff’s RPDs. (See Opposition re: RPDs; Robie Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) It is noted that Defendant has not moved to be relieved of this waiver pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300(a). Thus, the responses that Defendant served on Plaintiff are insufficient and do not render the motion moot.

            Accordingly, the motion to deem RFAs admitted is DENIED as moot, and the motion to compel responses to the RPDs is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve Code-compliant and verified responses to Plaintiff’s RPDs, without objections, within 30 days of this order.  

Sanctions

            Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $860 against Defendant corresponding with each motion, totaling $1720. In addition to the $60 filing fee for each motion, Plaintiff’s counsel attests that his hourly rate is $400 and that the preparation of the motions and the resulting court appearances would take four hours in total. (See diDanto Decls. ¶ 4.)

In connection with Plaintiff’s motion to deem RFAs admitted, sanctions are mandatory pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c). Nevertheless, the requested amounts are excessive under the circumstances. First, in comparing the Plaintiff’s various discovery motions, it is clear that the motions are nearly identical, cookie-cutter in nature, and concern non-complicated discovery issues. Thus, it is unlikely that Plaintiff’s counsel expended a significant time for these motions. Second, Plaintiff’s appearance will likely be remote. Thus, Plaintiff’s sanctions request in connection with his motion to deem RFAs admitted is reduced to $400, consisting of .85 hour of attorney time at a rate of $400 per hour and $60 in filing fees.

While Plaintiff was successful on his motion to compel responses regarding his RPDs, the imposition of further sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(c).) First, Plaintiff has been already been awarded sanctions in connection with his various discovery motions. As indicated above, these motions were largely identical. Thus, it would be improper to continue to reward Plaintiff for this tactic. Therefore, the requested sanctions in connection with his motion to compel responses to his RPDs is denied.  

            Accordingly, in connection with Plaintiff’s motion to deem RFAs admitted, the Court grants Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $400, and with regard to the monetary sanctions request made in his motion to compel responses to his RPDs, the Court denies this request in its entirety.

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Deem Request for Admission, Set One, Admitted is DENIED as moot. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions against Defendant in connection with this motion in the reduced amount of $400, payable within 30 days of this order.

The Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve verified responses, without objection, within 30 days of this order. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions against Defendant in connection with this motion.

            If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.