Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01773, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01773    Hearing Date: March 5, 2024    Dept: C

William Lezama vs Emmanuel Romero, et al.

Case No.: 23NWCV01773

Hearing Date: March 5, 2024 @ 9:30 AM

#2

Tentative Ruling

     I.        Plaintiff’s Discovery Motions as to Defendant Emmanuel Romero are GRANTED.  The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1871.60 payable in 30 days.

    II.        Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents as to Defendant KAS Produce is advanced from March 6, 2024 to today’s date.  Plaintiff’s Discovery Motions as to Defendant KAS Produce, Inc are DENIED as MOOT.  The request for sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Plaintiff William Lezama (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) as to Defendants Emmanuel Romero (“Defendant Romero”) and KAS Produce, Inc. (“Defendant KAS Produce”).  Plaintiff also moves to have requests for admissions (Set One) deemed admitted as to Defendants Romero and KAS Produce.  There are eight motions in total. 

This matter arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on May 12, 2022. On June 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants alleging negligence. 

Legal Standards

A.    Motions to Compel Responses. 

A party may make a demand for production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).)

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of a demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.070, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070, subd. (a) - (b).) 

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 who propounded the discovery request may bring a motion to compel and the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for production of documents or interrogatories, 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); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) 

On July 10, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendants Emmanuel Romero and KAS Produce, Inc. with Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents and Request for Admissions (Set One) prior to the assignment of Counsel. (Woods Decl., ¶ 4.)  Plaintiff extended the deadline to respond to September 6, 2023. (Martinez Decl., ¶ 6.) Defendant KAS Produce served responses on October 24, 2023. (Woods Decl., ¶ 9.)  No responses have been obtained from Defendant Romero. (Woods Decl., ¶ 9.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) as to Defendant KAS Produce are DENIED as MOOT.    

Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) as to Defendant Romero are GRANTED.  Responses are due in 30 days. 

B.   Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted 

Where there has been no timely response to requests for admissions, a “requesting 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).”  The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “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(c).) 

On October 24, 2023, Defendant KAS Produce served verified responses prior to the hearing. (Woods Decl., ¶ 10.)  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to have requests for admissions (Set One) deemed admitted as to Defendant KAS Produce is DENIED as MOOT.

No responses have been provided by Defendant Romero.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to have requests for admissions (Set One) deemed admitted as to Defendant Romero is GRANTED.  The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Plaintiff’s motion is admitted.   

C.   Sanctions

Additionally, failure to respond to discovery requests is misuse of the discovery process subject to sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.) The court is required to award monetary sanctions against Defendant unless Defendant can show they “acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) The monetary sanction shall be in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) Counsel for Plaintiff requests eight separate awards of sanctions.

Sanctions as to Defendant KAS Produce

The Court finds that Defendant KAS Produce acted with substantial justification. Counsel was assigned the matter on August 22, 2023 and communicated such to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Woods Decl., ¶ 7.) The Court finds it reasonable that Counsel would need additional time to acquire the information necessary to answer the discovery requests. Further, Counsel subsequently provided responses to Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant KAS Produce is DENIED.

Sanctions as to Defendant Romero

Plaintiff requests four different sanctions as it pertains to Defendant Romero.  For each motion Plaintiff requests $1,311.65 in sanctions (2.0 hours preparing the motion, .5 for reviewing the opposition, 1.5 for preparing the reply and an hour for the Court appearance at $250.00 and $61.65 filing fee.)

Using the lodestar method and taking into consideration the similarity of the motions, the simplicity of the motion, and the lack of any reply, the Court awards total reduced sanctions in the amount of $1,871.60 (5.0 hours for preparing all of the motions, 1 hour reviewing the oppositions, and half an hour to appear at the hearing, plus reimbursement of the four filing fees of $61.65 each.) 

The Court also finds that Counsel for Defendant Romero has met the burden to show they are blameless for the failure to answer the discovery requests. (Woods Decl., ¶¶ 9-10; Weinkauf v. Superior Court (1966) 64 Cal.App.2d 662, 665 (burden of proof is on attorney to show it was blameless for failure to answer interrogatories).)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant Romero is GRANTED as to Defendant Romero only, payable within 30 days.