Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 19STCV20164, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

On June 10, 2019, Plaintiffs Luciana Littlewolf and Jazmin Alejandra Littlewolf filed this action against Defendants Colonial Inn, 534 East Foothill LLC, Hamid Hamedi, erroneously sued as Hamid Hamin, and Does 1 through 20 (collectively “Defendants”) for injuries allegedly arising from bedbug bites during their stay at Defendants’ hotel. On June 27, 2023, Plaintiff Luciana Littlewolf (“Plaintiff”) served Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Admissions, Set One on Defendant Colonial Inn (“Defendant”). Having received no responses, Plaintiff proceeded to file the motions to compel Defendant to provide responses and to deem the RFAs admitted. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions. No opposition to the motions have been filed.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Here, on June 27, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel served Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant. (Declarations of Shelan Toma, ¶5; Ex. “A.”) To date, Defendant has not provided discovery responses, despite being granted numerous extensions. (Id. at ¶¶5-8.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, are GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, without objection, within 30 days of this order.

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, subd. (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, subds. (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, subd. (c).)

Here, on June 27, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel served Request for Admissions, Set One, on Defendant. (Declaration of Shelan Toma, ¶5; Ex. “A.”) To date, Defendant has not provided discovery responses, despite being granted numerous extensions. (Id. at ¶¶5-8.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to deem the Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted is granted and the Requests are hereby ordered admitted.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification, or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a), “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” For requests for admission, monetary sanctions are mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Here, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,100.00 for 7 hours incurred at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $300.00 for each motion. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in a reduced amount because the motions are straightforward, unopposed, and nearly identical to one another. Sanctions are imposed against Defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $3000, to be paid within 30 days of the date of this Order.
HAMEDI DISCOVERY

On June 10, 2019, Plaintiffs Luciana Littlewolf and Jazmin Alejandra Littlewolf filed this action against Defendants Colonial Inn, 534 East Foothill LLC, Hamid Hamedi, erroneously sued as Hamid Hamin, and Does 1 through 20 (collectively “Defendants”) for injuries allegedly arising from bedbug bites during their stay at Defendants’ hotel. On June 27, 2023, Plaintiff Luciana Littlewolf (“Plaintiff”) served Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Hamid Hamedi (“Defendant”). Having received no responses, Plaintiff proceeded to file the motion to compel Defendant to provide responses. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions. No opposition to the motion has been filed.

Here, on June 27, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel served Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant. (Declaration of Shelan Toma, ¶5; Ex. “A.”) To date, Defendant has not provided discovery responses, despite being granted numerous extensions. (Id. at ¶¶5-8.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objection, within 30 days of this order.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification, or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a), “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Here, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,100.00 for 7 hours incurred at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $300.00 for each motion. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in a reduced amount because the motion is straightforward, unopposed, and nearly identical to the other discovery motions against Defendant Colonial Inn filed simultaneously with this motion. Sanctions are imposed against Defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $1000, to be paid within 30 days of the date of this Order.

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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court