Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV06570, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06570    Hearing Date: November 29, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTIES:         Defendants Panrose Corporation, Inc. and Harvey

Plotnik

RESPONDING PARTY:    None

I.         BACKGROUND

On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff Destinie Gabrielle Neal (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Panrose Corporation, Inc. (“Panrose”), 7-Eleven, Inc., Shell Oil Company (“Shell”), Harvey Plotnik (“Plotnik”), and Does 1 to 20, inclusive, asserting causes of action for (1) intentional tort – battery, (2) negligent hiring, training, and supervision, and (3) respondeat superior.  The Attachments to the Complaint allege that on or about February 19, 2020, Plaintiff was at the 7-Eleven Store, at or near 1900 S. Central Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90011 (the “Premises”) to exchange a moldy sandwich when Defendant Plotnick and the other defendants’ employees (whose identities are unknown) beat up Plaintiff, physically injuring her.

On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff amended the Complaint to substitute APRO Distribution, LLC for the defendant sued fictitiously as Doe 1.

On July 11, 2023, the Court granted the motion of Michael Domingo, Esq., to be relieved as Plaintiff’s counsel of record. The Court ordered that counsel would be relieved upon filing proof of service showing service of the order. (Minute Order, dated July 11, 2023, p. 3, the top of the page.)

On October 23, 2023, Michael Domingo, Esq. filed Proof of Service of Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, thereby removing him as Plaintiff’s counsel.

Therefore, Plaintiff is currently self-represented.

On October 27, 2023, Defendants Panrose and Plotnik (collectively, “Defendants”) filed the instant four motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to their Request for Production of Documents (Set Two), Form Interrogatories (Set Three), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and to deem their Requests for Admission (Set Two) admitted. Defendants also move for sanctions.

As of November 28, 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).)

III.      DISCUSSION

A.   Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production

1.   The Requests for Production at Issue

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to serve responses to their Request for Production of Documents, Set Two (the “RPDs”).

Defense counsel attests to the following facts in support of the motion.

“On December 21, 2022, Defendants served Plaintiff with [the RPDs]. A true and correct copy [of the discovery] is attached as Exhibit A.” (Declaration of Arthur Khurin in support of the RPD motion, filed October 27, 2023 (“Khurin RPD Decl.”), ¶ 3.) “To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the aforementioned discovery.” (Khurin RPD Decl., ¶ 4.) After Plaintiff became self-represented, Defendants mailed notice of the instant motion to Plaintiff. (Khurin RPD Decl., ¶ 6.) On July 20, 2023, defense counsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff, but Plaintiff instructed him not to call her number anymore. (Khurin RPD Decl., ¶ 7.)

The Court has reviewed the RPDs attached to defense counsel’s declaration and finds they seek relevant information.

Accordingly, in light of defense counsel’s declaration and Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the RPD motion, the Court finds it proper to grant the request to compel Plaintiff’s initial responses to the Defendants’  Request for Production of Documents, Set Two.

2.   Sanctions for Requests for Production Motion

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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, subd. (c).)

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(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, Defendants seek sanctions of only $260 “represent[ing] the reasonable cost incurred by Defendants in bringing this motion.” (RPD Motion, p. 6:18-20.)

The request for sanctions of $260 is reasonable and granted.  

B.   Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

1.   The Form Interrogatories at Issue

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to serve responses to their Form Interrogatories, Set Three (the “FROGs”).

Defense counsel attests to the following facts in support of the FROGs motion.

On May 11, 2023, Defendants propounded the FROGs on Plaintiff, but Plaintiff has still not responded to the discovery. (Declaration of Arthur Khurin in support of the FROGs motion, filed October 27, 2023 (“Khurin FROG Decl.”), ¶¶ 4, 5; Exhibit A – a copy of the FROGs with a proof of service indicating service on May 11, 2023.)

In light of defense counsel’s declaration and Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the FROGs motion, the Court finds it proper to grant the request to compel Plaintiff’s initial responses to the Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set Three.

2.   Sanctions for the Form Interrogatories Motion

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with 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, subd. (c).)

As noted above, California Rule of Court 3.1348(a) provides for discovery sanctions even if no opposition to a discovery motion is filed. Here, Defendants seek sanctions of only $260, representing the reasonable cost incurred by Defendants in bringing the form interrogatory motion. (FROG Motion, p. 6:19-21.)

The Court finds the requested sanctions of $260 reasonable and grants them.

C.   Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories

1.   The Special Interrogatories at Issue

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to serve responses to their Special Interrogatories, Set One (the “SROGs”).

Defense counsel attests to the following facts in support of the SROGs motion. On December 21, 2022, Defendants propounded the SROGs on Plaintiff, but Plaintiff has still not responded to the discovery. (Declaration of Arthur Khurin in support of the SROGs motion, filed October 27, 2023, ¶¶ 4, 6; Exhibit A – a copy of the FROGs.)

The Court notes that Defendants propounded sixty (60) SROGs on Plaintiff.

“Except as provided in [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 2030.070 [inapplicable here], no party shall, as a matter of right, propound to any other party more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories. If the initial set of interrogatories does not exhaust this limit, the balance may be propounded in subsequent sets.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030, subd. (b).)

“Unless a declaration as described in Section 2030.050 has been made, a party need only respond to the first 35 specially prepared interrogatories served, if that party states an objection to the balance, under Section 2030.240, on the ground that the limit has been exceeded.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.030, subd. (c) [emphasis added].)

Here, Defendants have not submitted proof that at the time of service of the SROGs that they included the declaration required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.050.

Nevertheless, there is no proof that Plaintiff objected to the balance. In fact, by failing to respond to the SROGs in a timely manner, Plaintiff has waived all objections to the SROGs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Accordingly, in light of defense counsel’s declaration and Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the SROGs motion, the Court finds it proper to grant the request to compel further responses to the SROGs.

2.   Sanctions for the Special Interrogatories Motion

Defendants seek sanctions of $260 like in the other motions above. (SROGs Motion, p. 6:17-19.)  As with the motions above, the Court finds the requested sanctions reasonable and grants them.

D.  Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted

1.   Requests for Admissions at Issue

Defendants move for an order deeming the truth of the matters specified in their Requests for Admission, Set Two (“RFAs”), admitted.

On May 11, 2023, Defendants propounded the RFAs on Plaintiff, but Plaintiff has still not responded to the discovery despite meet and confer efforts. (Declaration of Arthur Khurin in support of the RFAs motion, filed October 27, 2023 (“Khurin RFA Decl.”), ¶¶ 4-6; Exhibit A – a copy of the RFAs with a proof of service indicating service on May 11, 2023.)

          The eighteen (18) RFAs Defendants propounded asked Plaintiff to admit to the following:

1.   Admit that Defendants are not liable to YOU for YOUR alleged injuries.

2.   Admit that Defendants are not liable to YOU for negligence.

3.   Admit that Defendants are not liable to YOU for your allegation of Battery.

4.   Admit that Defendants are not liable to YOU for Negligent hiring, supervision, and training.

5.   Admit that Defendants are not liable to YOU for Respondeat Superior.

6.   Admit That Defendants, Or Any Of Defendants’ Employees, Did Not Intentionally Touch You In A Harmful Or Offensive Manner.

7.   Admit that Defendants, or any of Defendants’ employees, did not cause any harm to YOU.

8.   Admit that Defendants are not liable to YOU for premises liability.

9.   Admit that YOU did not lose any past wages as a result of the alleged INCIDENT.

10.  Admit that YOU will not lose any future wages as a result of the alleged INCIDENT.

11.  Admit that YOU do not have any medical records associated with YOUR treatment arising out of the INCIDENT.

12.  Admit that YOU do not have any medical bills associated with YOUR treatment arising out of the INCIDENT.

13.  Admit that YOU do not have any property damages arising out of the INCIDENT.

14.  Admit that YOUR claims against the DEFENDANTS is frivolous.

15.  Admit that Defendant Harvey Plotnik never touched you on the date of INCIDENT.

16.  Admit that Defendant Lutfur Rahman never touched you on the date of INCIDENT.

17.  Admit that none of Defendants’ employees ever touched you on the date of INCIDENT.

18.  Admit that YOU have brought this lawsuit in bad faith.

(Khurin RFA Decl., Exhibit A, pp. 3:3-4:16.)

The Court finds the RFAs ask for relevant information.

“The court shall make [an] order [admitting the truth of any matters specified in the RFAs], 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, there is no evidence that Plaintiff has served, before the hearing on the instant motion, a proposed response to the RFAs.

For those reasons, the request to deem the truth of the matters specified in the RFAs admitted is granted.

2.   Sanctions for Requests for Admissions Motion

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motions unless the court “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. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Here, Defendants seek sanctions of only $260 against Plaintiff. (RFA Motion, p. 6:25-27.)  As above, the Court finds the sanctions request reasonable and grants it.

IV.      CONCLUSION

          Defendants’ discovery motions are GRANTED in their entirety.

The truth of the matters specified in the Defendants’ Requests for Admission (Set Two) are deemed admitted.

          Plaintiff is ordered to serve code-compliant responses, without objections, to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents (Set Two), Form Interrogatories (Set Three), and Special Interrogatories (Set One) within thirty (30) days of this ruling.

          Plaintiff is further ordered to pay Defendants sanctions of $1,040 ($260 for each of the four (4) motions).  

Moving parties to give notice. 

            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’s 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.

      Dated this 29th day of November 2023