Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC07165, Date: 2024-02-15 Tentative Ruling

*** Please Note that the Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong ***
If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. 

Case Number: 22STLC07165    Hearing Date: April 4, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, April 04, 2024

Case Name:                             NIXON GERARDO GOMEZ v. MARIA GABRIELA RODRIGUEZ

Case No.:                                22STLC07165

Motion:                                   Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Plaintiff’s Demand for Request for Form Interrogatories (Set One); Request for Admissions (Set One); Requests for Sanctions

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Nixon Gerardo Gomez

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    NO

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff Nixon Gerardo Gomez’s (1) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) Request for Admissions, Set One as Admitted, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $120.00 against the Defendant.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                      NO

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                      NO

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                       NO 

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of March 21, 2024                    [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of March 27, 2024                    [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On October 28, 2022, Nixon Gerardo Gomez (“Plaintiff”), in propria persona, filed an action against Maria Gabriela Rodriguez (“Defendant”) for breach of contract, common counts, and fraud.

On December 2, 2022, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On April 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Admissions, and Monetary Sanctions.  The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion on May 17, 2023, noting several deficiencies.

On July 25, 2023, Plaintiff again filed the same discovery motion. The Court denied Plaintiff’s discovery motion on September 14, 2023, again noting several deficiencies, and confirmed its denial of Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions on November 16, 2023.

On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Plaintiff’s Demand for Request for Form Interrogatories (Set One); to Request for Admissions (Set One) and requested monetary sanctions. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s, the Court continued the hearing on the matter to April 04, 2024, to allow Plaintiff to serve and file proper proof of service of the instant motion on the Defendant.

No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Plaintiff moves the Court to order Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Admissions, Set One which he served on Defendant on December 12, 2023. Plaintiff makes this motion on the grounds that Defendant has failed to serve timely responses to the above-described production of documents.

OPPOSITION

             No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

             No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard  

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service.  (Code Civ. Proc., §¿2030.260(a).)  If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc. §¿2030.290(b).)  Once compelled to respond, the party waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection.  (Code Civ. Proc. §¿2030.290(a).)  There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020(a), 2030.290.)  No “meet and confer”: efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery.  (See Code Civ. Proc. §¿2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Under Code of Civil Procedure 2033.280(b), failure to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner allows the requesting party to “move for an order that…the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted” by the party that failed to respond. The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court, “unless [the court] 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)). By failing to timely respond, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2033.280(a).)

II.        Discussion

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff provides the Court with the same facts for both his motion to compel responses to his form interrogatories and motion to deem RFAs as admitted. As a result, the Court will review the motions together in Part A of the order.

A. Motion to Deem RFAs as Admitted and Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff provides the Court with his own sworn declaration in which he states that he served Defendant with both his discovery requests on December 12, 2023. (Nixon Gerardo Gomez Decl. ¶¶ 1-2., Exhs. A & B) Plaintiff further states that he has received no responses to his discovery requests in the time allowed to Defendant after service. (Id. ¶ 3.)

The Court finds the motion to be proper. Plaintiff has provided evidence that more than 30 days have passed since Plaintiff served Defendant with his discovery requests and that Plaintiff has since not received any response. Thus, since more than 30-days has lapsed and no response has been provided, Plaintiff is entitled to bring the motions.

B. Sanctions

The Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(c) provides in relevant part that, 

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under [Section 2023.010] against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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(c).) CCP section 2031.300(c) similarly provides the same remedy when a party fails to respond to a demand for production of documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(c).)

            Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone because of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Furthermore, it is “mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

Here, Plaintiff argues that sanctions are warranted as Defendant’s refusal to cooperate in the discovery process has placed Plaintiff in a position of enormous financial stress while “simultaneously provoking expensive litigation in order to compel her to meaningfully participate in the discovery process.” (Mot. p. 5: 17-20.) The Court finds Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery request is a misuse of the discovery process. Thus, sanctions are warranted against the Defendant. Although Plaintiff does not request a specific amount be entered against the Defendant, the Court issues sanctions in the amount of $120.00 for the sum of the filing fees for both motions.

III.       Conclusion

            Plaintiff Nixon Gerardo Gomez’s (1) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) Request for Admissions, Set One as Admitted, is GRANTED. THE COURT DEEMS THE MATTERS WITHIN PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, AS TRUE AGAINST DEFENDANT.

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $120.00 against the Defendant.

DEFENDANT MARIA GABRIELA RODRIGUEZ IS ORDERED TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES WITH CODE COMPLIANT, OBJECTION-FREE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

DEFENDANT MARIA GABRIELA RODRIGUEZ IS ORDERED TO PAY $120.00 TO PLAINTIFF WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.