Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV20759, Date: 2023-10-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV20759 Hearing Date: January 5, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the parties' papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 24, 2022, Un Chu Ko (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Zion Market and Does 1-20 for premises liability,
On July 27, 2022, Defendant 864 S. Vermont Ave. Inc. dba Zion Market (erroneously named as Zion Market) (“Defendant”) filed an answer.
On April 19, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.
On September 20, 2023, Defendant filed motions (1) to compel responses to demand for production of documents and for sanctions, (2) to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, (3) to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, (4) to compel responses to form interrogatories, set two, and for sanctions, and (5) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission. The motions to compel were set for hearing on October 16, 2023. The motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission was set for hearing on October 18, 2023.
On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document in which the type-written title, “Notice of Motion and Motion for Striking Portions of the Complaint,” was stricken out and replaced, in handwriting, with “Motion for Reconsideration.” The original hearing date of October 16, 2023, was stricken out replaced, in handwriting, with November 17, 2023. In the document, Plaintiff requested a 30-day continuance of the October 18 hearing on Defendant’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in Defendant’s requests for admission. Plaintiff also asserted she was looking for counsel to represent her and complained of unfair treatment by Defendant’s counsel.
On October 9, 2023, Defendant filed replies and evidentiary objections to Plaintiff's September 29, 2023 filing.
On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff appeared at the hearing on the motions to compel but her counsel did not appear. Plaintiff’s counsel had not been relieved as counsel because he had not filed proof of service of the order granting his motion to be relieved as counsel. The Court determined that Defendant had not served the discovery motions on Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court continued the hearings on all of Defendant’s discovery motions to January 5, 2024 and ordered Defendant’s counsel to serve the discovery motions and notice of continuance on Plaintiff’s counsel.
On October 24 and December 14, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a “Notice of Granted Motion” which included a copy of the Court’s April 19, 2023 order granting counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel and a proof of service on Plaintiff and Defendant’s counsel.
On December 4, 2023, at a hearing on Defendant’s motion to continue the trial, the Court reminded Plaintiff that five discovery motions filed by Defendant were scheduled to be heard on January 5, 2024.
Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the discovery motions.
Trial is currently scheduled for November 18, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendant requests that the Court compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s demand for production of documents, special interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set two. Defendant also requests that the Court deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission and impose sanctions.
Plaintiff requests that the Court continue the October 18, 2023 hearing on Defendant’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission.
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
The Court overrules Defendant’s evidentiary objections.
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.)
D. Discovery sanctions
“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that 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., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)
“Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:
* * *
“(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)
DISCUSSION
On July 27, 2022, Defendant served a request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff. On June 7, 2023, Defendant served form interrogatories, set two, and requests for admission, set one, on Plaintiff.
Plaintiff failed to provide timely responses to the requests. Plaintiff had not provided responses by the time Defendant filed these motions.
The Court grants the motion to compel responses to the demand for production of documents and orders Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by February 5, 2024.
The Court grants the motions to compel responses to the special interrogatories, set one, and the form interrogatories, sets one and two, and orders Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses to the interrogatories without objections by February 5, 2024.
The Court grants the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission. The matters specified in the requests for admission are deemed admitted.
Defendant requests monetary sanctions of $996 for each motion to compel based on 4.8 hours of attorney time at a rate of $195 per hour and one $60 filing fee. Counsel spent 2.8 hours preparing each motion and anticipated spending 2 hours to prepare the reply and to prepare for and attend the hearing.
The motions to compel are substantially similar and are set to be heard together. The Court awards sanctions of $1,020 for the four motions to compel based on 4 hours of attorney’s time and 4 filing fees.
Defendant requests monetary sanctions of $1,191 for the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission based on 5.8 hours of attorney time at a rate of $195 per hour and one $60 filing fee. Counsel spent 3.8 hours on “efforts to secure compliance and to . . . prepare and file [the] motion” and anticipated spending 2 hours to prepare the reply and to prepare for and attend the hearing.
The Court awards sanctions of $255 for the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission based on 1 hour of attorney’s time and 1 filing fee.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant 864 S. Vermont Ave. Inc. dba Zion Market’s motion to compel responses to Defendant’s demand for production of documents and orders Plaintiff Un Chu Ko to provide verified code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by February 5, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant 864 S. Vermont Ave. Inc. dba Zion Market’s motion to compel responses to Defendant’s special interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Un Chu Ko to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by February 5, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant 864 S. Vermont Ave. Inc. dba Zion Market’s motion to compel responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Un Chu Ko to provide verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by February 5, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant 864 S. Vermont Ave. Inc. dba Zion Market’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Plaintiff Un Chu Ko and deems the matters specified in the requests for admission to be admitted.
The Court GRANTS Defendant 864 S. Vermont Ave. Inc. dba Zion Market’s request for sanctions and orders Plaintiff Un Chu Ko to pay Defendant $1,275 ($255 for each motion) in sanctions by February 5, 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.