Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV27618, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV27618, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27618 Hearing Date: December 8, 2023 Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Lee Arian, Department 27

HEARING DATE: December 8, 2023 TRIAL DATE: February 28, 2024

CASE: Marcia Sebastian v. Bodega Latina Corporation

CASE NO.: 21STCV27618

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO GENERAL FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MOTION TO DEEM THE MATTERS IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Bodega Latina Corporation

RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 27, 2021, Plaintiff Marcia Sebastian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Bodega Latina Corporation (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, asserting causes of action for (1) negligence and (2) premises liability.

On October 16, 2023, Defendant filed the instant four motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to their Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) (“RPD”), Form Interrogatories (Set Two) (“FROGs”), Special Interrogatories (Set Two) (“SROGs”), and to deem their Requests for Admission (Set Two) (“RFAs”) admitted. Defendants also move for sanctions.

As of December 1, 2023, no oppositions to the motions have been filed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“Within 30 days after service” of a demand for inspection or interrogatories, the responding party shall serve responses to the discovery “unless on motion” the court has shortened or extended the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.260, subd. (a); 2030.260, subd. (a).)

Failure to serve timely responses to demands for inspection and interrogatories results in the responding party waiving any objection to the discovery requests, including those based on privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.300, subd. (a); 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Similarly, “[w]ithin 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared, unless on motion of the requesting party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, a “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, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

Monetary Sanctions

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 inspection demands, 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), 2031.300, subd. (c).) In the context of a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, it is mandatory that the court impose monetary sanctions on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant served Plaintiff with the aforementioned discovery requests on January 20, 2023. The Court has reviewed the requests and interrogatories attached to defense counsel’s declarations and finds they seek relevant information.

Plaintiff’s responses to those requests were due on February 21, 2023. On July 31, 2023, having not heard from Plaintiff, Defendant emailed to inquire about the status of those requests and grant Plaintiff an extension to respond by August 17, 2023. To date, Plaintiff has not provided responses, nor has Plaintiff opposed Defendant’s motions.¿ Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and production requests are waived.¿¿

As Defendant properly served the discovery requests and Defendant failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendant’s FROGs, SROGs, and RPD.¿ In addition, Defendant is entitled to an order deeming RFAs admitted against Plaintiff.

Monetary Sanctions

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff. In the context of requests for admissions, sanctions are mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Given that the Court has granted these motions, sanctions are warranted.

Here, Defendant seeks sanctions of $1,545, consisting of three-and-a-half (3.5) hours defense counsel spent on the moving papers, two-and-a-half (2.5) hours he anticipates spending on a reply to an anticipated opposition, and up to three (3) hours he anticipates spending on the hearing, for a total of nine (9) hours at his billing rate of $165 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (See Derflinger Decls.)

The Court finds the requested sanctions excessive because Plaintiff did not file any opposition, and Defendant did not reply. Moreover, the Court finds the three-hour allocation to prepare for and attend the hearing excessive. Therefore, the Court will deduct four hours of attorney time (equaling $660) from the requested sanctions and impose sanctions of $885 against Plaintiff.

IV. CONCLUSION

The unopposed motions are granted. Plaintiff, Marcia Sebastian is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Defendant’s General Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Two. Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set Two, is deemed admitted against Plaintiff.

The request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $885 to Defendant.

Discovery responses are to be provided and sanctions are to be paid within 30 days of the date of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated: December 5, 2023 ___________________________________

Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court

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.