Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV09073, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09073    Hearing Date: October 31, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Lee Arian, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     October 31, 2023                   TRIAL DATE:  March 6, 2024

CASE:                                Hayfa Matta v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV09073

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:               Plaintiff Hayfa Matti

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

            On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff, Hayfa Matta filed these motions to compel Defendant Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority to provide responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of General Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents, and to deem Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted against Defendant.  Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant.

            The motions are unopposed.[1]

II.        LEGAL STANDARD TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES 

            If a party to whom interrogatories and inspection demands were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses without objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).)  If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  Failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a), 2033.280, subd. (a).)    

            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

            Plaintiff served Defendant with these discovery requests on October 12, 2022. At defense counsel’s request, Plaintiff granted an extension to provide responses on four occasions. However, to date, Defendant has not provided responses.¿ (See Beloryan Decls.)¿ Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and production requests are waived.¿¿ 

            As Plaintiff properly served the discovery requests and Defendant failed to serve responses, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order directing Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s First set of General Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.¿ In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming admitted Request for Admissions, Set One, against Defendant.

             Monetary Sanctions

            Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant.  Given that the Court has granted these motions, sanctions are warranted.  Indeed, in the context of requests for admissions, sanctions are mandatory.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Defendant in the amount of $1,240, representing 2 hours at plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate and $240 in filing fees.

IV.       CONCLUSION

            The unopposed motions are granted.  Defendant Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of General Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.  Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, is deemed admitted against Defendant.

            The request for sanctions is granted.  Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,240 to Plaintiff, by and through her counsel.

            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:   October 31, 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.