Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV49532, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

On December 29, 2020, Plaintiff State of California (“State”) filed this action against Defendant Gerald Moore and Does 1 through 10, alleging one cause of action for premises liability arising out of an incident on January 7, 2019. On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff Stacie Williams (“Williams”) filed a separate action against Defendants Rosemary L. Bean-Moore (“Rosemary”), Gerald Moore, Carter of Moore Living Trust, and Does 1 to 100, alleging causes of action for premises liability and general negligence. The cases were consolidated on January 13, 2022, with Case Number 20STCV49532 being designated as the lead case.

On August 29, 2023, Williams served Special Interrogatories, Set One, Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, and Requests for Admission, Set One, on Defendant Rosemary. Having received no responses, Williams proceeded to file the motions to compel Plaintiff to provide responses and for an order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted or alternatively for an order compelling answers without objections. Williams also requests monetary sanctions. No oppositions 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 August 29, 2023, Williams served Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, on Defendant Rosemary. (Declarations of Marine Khachoyan, ¶2; Ex. A.) To date, Defendant Rosemary has not provided responses. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Therefore, Williams’ motions to compel Rosemary’s responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, are GRANTED. Defendant Rosemary is ordered to provide responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand 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 August 29, 2023, Williams served Requests for Admission, Set One, on Defendant Rosemary. (Declaration of Marine Khachoyan, ¶2; Ex. A.) To date, Defendant Rosemary has not provided responses. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Therefore, Williams’ motion for an order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted is GRANTED. The truth of matters specified in Requests for Admission, Set One, are hereby deemed admitted and conclusively established as to Defendant Rosemary.

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).) Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Here, Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $1,110.00 for each motion based on 3.5 hours incurred at Williams’ counsel’s hourly rate of $300.00, plus $60.00 filing fees. Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in a reduced amount because the motions are straightforward, unopposed, and nearly identical to one another. Sanctions are imposed against Defendant Rosemary in the total amount of $2260.00, 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