Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV21128, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, ADMITTED; MOTIONS TO COMPEL INITIAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE; REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS; MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL-RELATED DATES

Ruling: MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, ADMITTED; MOTIONS TO COMPEL INITIAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE; REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED.

On August 20, 2024, Defendant Tak Yeung Lam (“Defendant”) propounded Request for Admissions, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Productions, Set One on Plaintiff ALEX OCAMPO (“Plaintiff”).[1] Responses were due September 23, 2024.

To date, Plaintiff has not provided the requested discovery responses. Thus, Defendant moves the Court to deem the contents of his Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted and to compel Plaintiff to produce initial responses to his Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One.

If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)¿¿The party propounding the discovery requests may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) Unlike a motion to compel further discovery responses, a motion to compel initial discovery responses does not have any meet and confer requirements.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)¿¿¿A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.)

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.”¿ CCP § 2033.010.¿ “Within 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 ....”¿ CCP § 2033.250(a).

If a party to whom request for admissions are served fails to provide a timely response, the party to whom the request was directed waives any objections, including based on privilege or the work product doctrine. CCP § 2033.280(a). The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. CCP § 2033.280(b). The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion. CCP § 2033.280(c). Unlike a motion to compel further discovery responses, a motion to deem RFA admitted does not have any meet and confer requirements.

It is undisputed that Plaintiff did not serve timely initial discovery responses. No opposition was filed, nor were any documents presented that indicated discovery responses had been served prior to the hearing. Consequently, the present motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit verified responses to Defendant Tak Yeung Lam’s Requests for Production, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections within 20 days from notice of this order. Additionally, the contents of Defendant Tak Yeung Lam’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted.

Plaintiff’s non-responsiveness prompted Defendant to file the present motion and incur attorney’s fees. Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $500.00 per motion, representing a $200 hourly rate. Considering the simplicity of the issues and the absence of an opposition, the Court exercises its discretion and sets the sanction amount to $1,200 for all four motions. Consequently, the Court sanctions Plaintiff in the amount of $1,200. Plaintiff and his counsel are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions of $1,200 to counsel for Defendant within 20 days from notice of this order.

Turning to the motion to continue trial, the complaint was filed on September 1, 2023, and alleges negligence based on a motor vehicle accident. Defendant’s answer was filed August 16, 2024. Defendant Kam Wai Lam’s answer was filed October 18, 2024. Trial is currently set for February 28, 2025, and there have been no prior continuances.

Defendants seek a continued trial date of August 22, 2025. Defendants assert their excused inability to conduct discovery in this case and require more time to reach a settlement. In light of Plaintiff’s apparent lack of cooperation in conducting discovery, Defendants’ relatively recent appearance in this case, and the lack of prior continuances, the Court finds good cause to continue trial and all related dates.

The Court continues the Trial to August 22, 2025, at 8:30 a.m, and the Final Status Conference to August 8, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. All case-related deadlines will follow the new trial date.

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.

[1] Though the Notices of Motion for each of the four discovery motions state they are brought by both Defendants Tak Yeung Lam and Kam Wai Lam, the attached discovery only shows that it was propounded by Defendant Tak Yeung Lam. Therefore, this order will only pertain to Defendant Tak Yeung Lam’s discovery responses.