Judge Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case Number: 22SMCV00578, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case: 22SMCV00578, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00578 Hearing Date: August 25, 2023 Dept: N

This Motion: Plaintiff’s four motions to compel initial responses.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Veritext LLC alleges that it provided court reporting services to Defendant and provided invoices for the same, but Defendant failed to pay the amount due in the amount of $46,708.50.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Veritext LLC’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s, Sittler Law Group APC, Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED. Defendant Sittler Law Group APC shall provide code compliant responses to Plaintiff Veritext LLC’s Request for Production of Documents – Set One within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff Veritext LLC’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s, Sittler Law Group APC, Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant Sittler Law Group APC shall provide code compliant responses to Plaintiff Veritext LLC’s Form Interrogatories within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff Veritext LLC’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s, Sittler Law Group APC, Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant Sittler Law Group APC shall provide code compliant responses to Plaintiff Veritext LLC’s Special Interrogatories – Set One within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff Veritext LLC’s Motion for Order that Genuineness of Documents and Truth of Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions Be Deemed Admitted as Against Defendant, Sittler Law Group APC is GRANTED. The matters identified in Plaintiff Veritext LLC’s Request for Admissions – Set One are deemed admitted against Defendant Sittler Law Group APC as of the date of entry of this order.

Plaintiff Veritext LLC’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $2,240, payable by Defendant Sittler Law Group APC and defense counsel to Plaintiff Veritext LLC and Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff Veritext LLC shall pay two (2) additional motion filing fees of $60 before the hearing on this motion.

Plaintiff Veritext LLC to give notice.

DISCUSSION

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Similarly, where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. (Ibid.) Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. (Contra Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1) [good cause requirement for motion to compel further responses].)

Further, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), 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.” 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, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff Veritext LLC (“Plaintiff”) served Defendant Sittler Law Group with its Request for Production of Documents – Set One, Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories – Set One, and Request for Admissions – Set One on October 19, 2022. (Mots., Landsman Decls. ¶ 5, Ex. 1.) To date, no responses have been received. (Mots., Landsman Decls. ¶¶ 7, 8.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff Veritext LLC’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s, Sittler Law Group APC, Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED. Plaintiff Veritext LLC’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s, Sittler Law Group APC, Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff Veritext LLC’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s, Sittler Law Group APC, Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant Sittler Law Group APC shall provide code compliant responses to Plaintiff Veritext LLC’s Request for Production of Documents – Set One, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories – Set One within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

The Court notes that Plaintiff provided only two hearing reservation forms with the four motions, and it appears that Plaintiff paid only two hearing reservation fees for the four motions. Plaintiff shall pay two additional filing fees of $60 each before the hearing on this motion.

If a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for production is filed, the Court may impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “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).) If a motion to have requests for admission deemed admitted is filed, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Further, “[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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Defendants request $980 in monetary sanctions for each motion. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are proper, but the Court reduces the amount to $2,240, representing one hour spent preparing each motion and one hour spent appearing at the hearing on the motions, totaling five hours at the rate of $400 per hour, plus four $60 filing fees. Sanctions in the amount of $2,240 shall be paid within 30 days.

Plaintiff Veritext LLC to give notice.