Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV20879, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV20879 Hearing Date: March 4, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff Andrew Haislip (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Moonlite Inn, Ramesh Ahir, Peter Ahir, and Does 1-10 for general negligence and premises liability.
On August 10, 2022, Defendants Vinayak Investments, LLC, doing business as Moonlite Inn, Ramesh Ahir, and Peter Ahir (“Defendants”) filed an answer.
On September 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney form substituting himself as a self-represented litigant in place of his former attorney.
On November 21, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, and a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, and for sanctions. On November 22, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions, and a motion to compel Plaintiff's responses to form interrogatories, sets one and two, and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on March 4, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed oppositions.
Trial is currently scheduled for July 23, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendants ask the Court (1) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, sets one and two, (2) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, and (3) to award sanctions.
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 August 10, 2023, Defendants served form interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff. On August 24, 2023, Defendants served request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories, set two, and requests for admission, set one, on Plaintiff.
Plaintiff did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time Defendants filed these motions.
The Court grants the motions.
Defendants ask the Court to award $260.00 in sanctions on each motion. The Court denies the request to award sanctions on the motions to compel responses to the request for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories because the relevant statutes authorize sanctions against a party, person, or attorney “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Plaintiff did not make or oppose a motion to compel.
The Court is required to impose sanctions “on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated [the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission].” The Court awards Defendants $260.00 in sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendants Vinayak Investments, LLC, doing business as Moonlite Inn, Ramesh Ahir, and Peter Ahir to compel Plaintiff Andrew Haislip’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiff Andrew Haislip to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by April 2, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendants Vinayak Investments, LLC, doing business as Moonlite Inn, Ramesh Ahir, and Peter Ahir to compel Plaintiff Andrew Haislip’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Andrew Haislip to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections to the special interrogatories by April 2, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendants Vinayak Investments, LLC, doing business as Moonlite Inn, Ramesh Ahir, and Peter Ahir to compel Plaintiff Andrew Haislip’s responses to form interrogatories, sets one and two, and orders Plaintiff Andrew Haislip to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections to the form interrogatories by April 2, 2024.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendants Vinayak Investments, LLC, doing business as Moonlite Inn, Ramesh Ahir, and Peter Ahir to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, and deems the matters admitted.
The Court GRANTS IN PART the request for sanctions of Defendants Vinayak Investments, LLC, doing business as Moonlite Inn, Ramesh Ahir, and Peter Ahir and orders Plaintiff Andrew Haislip to pay Defendants Vinayak Investments, LLC, doing business as Moonlite Inn, Ramesh Ahir, and Peter Ahir $260.00 by April 2, 2024. In all other respects, the Court DENIES Defendants’ requests for sanctions.
The Court orders Defendants Vinayak Investments, LLC, doing business as Moonlite Inn, Ramesh Ahir, and Peter Ahir to pay the Court one additional $60.00 filing fee because Defendants should have filed the motion to compel responses to the form interrogatories as two motions, one for each set of form interrogatories.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.