Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV45584, Date: 2023-09-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV45584 Hearing Date: January 19, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 14, 2021, Plaintiff Melissa Molina Ruiz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), City of Huntington Park, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, California Department of Transportation, and Does 1 to 50 for premises liability (dangerous condition of public property) under Government Code sections 815.2 and 835.
On April 18, 2023, the City of Huntington Park filed an answer. On January 12, 2024, the Court dismissed the City of Huntington Park without prejudice at Plaintiff's request.
On April 21, 2023, the Court dismissed the County of Los Angeles without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
Also on April 21, 2023, LACMTA filed an answer.
On July 13, 2023, the Court dismissed the City of Los Angeles without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On August 17, 2023, LACMTA filed motions (1) to compel responses to special interrogatories and for sanctions of $525, (2) to compel responses to form interrogatories and for sanctions of $525, (3) to compel responses to request for production of documents and for sanctions of $525, and (4) to deem admitted the matters specified in requests for admission and for sanctions of $525. The motions were set for hearing on September 25, 2023. The Court continued the hearings to January 19, 2024. On September 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed (1) an opposition to the motions to compel responses to the special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and request for production of documents, and (2) an opposition to the motion to deem admitted matters specified in the requests for admission. (The Court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s late oppositions.) On December 7, 2023, LACMTA filed replies addressing the requests for production of documents, special interrogatories, and requests for admission.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 28, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
LACMTA requests that the Court (1) issue an order compelling Plaintiff to serve full and complete verified responses to the requests for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and (2) deem admitted the matters specified in LACMTA’s requests for admission, set one. LACMTA also requests that the Court impose $525 in sanctions on Plaintiff for each motion.
Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the motions and sanctions requests.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Inspection demand
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides:
“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply:
“(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.
“(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), 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 a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).
“(d) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as a result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.
“(2) This subdivision shall not be construed to alter any obligation to preserve discoverable information.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)
B. Interrogatories
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides:
“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.
“(c) 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. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)
C. Requests for admission
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 provides:
“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The 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).
“(c) The court shall make this order, 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. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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.)
DISCUSSION
On May 1, 2023, LACMTA served requests for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories, set one, and requests for admission, set one, on Plaintiff. The parties agreed to continue the deadline for Plaintiff’s responses to July 28, 2023. Plaintiff had not provided any responses by the time LACMTA filed its motions on August 17, 2023.
On September 18, 2023 – prior to the September 25, 2023 hearing date -- Plaintiff served responses to the discovery requests. Although Plaintiff had waived any objections by not serving timely responses, LACMTA asserts that (1) Plaintiff’s responses to the requests for production of documents contained only objections, (2) Plaintiff’s responses to the special interrogatories included a preliminary statement of objections, and (3) Plaintiff’s responses to the requests for admission were not code-compliant. (LACMTA did not file a reply addressing the motion to compel responses to the form interrogatories.) Neither party has provided copies of Plaintiff’s late-served discovery responses to the Court.
The Court denies LACMTA’s motion to compel responses to the form interrogatories.
The Court denies LACMTA’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in the requests for admission. LACMTA asserts that the late-served responses were not code-compliant but has not provided copies of the responses or a declaration that might serve as evidence of the defects.
The Court grants LACMTA’s request for sanctions based on Plaintiff’s late responses to the requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) LACMTA requests $525 based on 1.5 hours of attorney time at a rate of $350 per hour. The Court grants $375 in sanctions based on 1.5 hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250 per hour.
The Court denies LACMTA’s requests for sanctions based on the motions to compel responses to the requests for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories. Sanctions for these motions are available only when a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion to compel Plaintiff Melissa Molina Ruiz’s responses to requests for production of documents, set one.
The Court DENIES Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion to compel Plaintiff Melissa Molina Ruiz’s responses to special interrogatories, set one.
The Court DENIES Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion to compel Plaintiff Melissa Molina Ruiz’s responses to form interrogatories, set one.
The Court DENIES Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Plaintiff Melissa Molina Ruiz.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s request for sanctions on its motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission and orders Plaintiff Melissa Molina Ruiz and her counsel to pay Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority $375.00 by February 20, 2024.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.