Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV27512, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV27512 Hearing Date: February 20, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 24, 2022, Plaintiff Bessy Silva filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), California Department of Transportation, and Does 1-50 for premises liability.
On August 18, 2023, the County filed an answer.
On August 23, 2023, the City filed an answer.
On August 31, 2023, Defendant The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, erroneously sued as California Department of Transportation, filed an answer.
On September 18, 2023, the Court dismissed the County without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On November 22, 2023, the Court dismissed the CA Dept. of Transportation without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On January 17, 2024, the City filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s response to (1) demand for inspection and production of documents, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, (3) form interrogatories, set one, and (4) requests for admission, set one.[1] The City also asked the Court to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admissions and to impose sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on February 20, 2024. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for August 21, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
The City asks the Court to compel Plaintiff’s response to (1) demand for inspection and production of documents, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, (3) form interrogatories, set one, and (4) requests for admission, set one. The City also asks the Court to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admissions and to impose 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 23, 2023, the City served (1) demand for inspection and production of documents, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, (3) form interrogatories, set one, and (4) requests for admission, set one, on Plaintiff.
Plaintiff did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time the City filed this motion.
The Court grants the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, and deems the matters admitted.
The Court denies the City’s request for sanctions on the motions to compel responses to the demand for inspection and production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories. Sanctions are available against “any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c)) and “any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c)). Plaintiff did not make or oppose a motion to compel.
The City has not stated how much time its attorney spent to prepare the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. Instead, the City requested $700.00 in sanctions for all four motions based on two hours of attorney time at a rate of $350.00 per hour, including one hour to prepare a reply and attend the hearing. The motion was unopposed. The Court grants $125.00 in sanctions based on 30 minutes of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant City of Los Angeles’s motion to compel Plaintiff Bessy Silva’s responses to the demand for inspection and production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiff Bessy Silva to provide verified code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by March 19, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant City of Los Angeles’s motion to compel Plaintiff Bessy Silva’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Bessy Silva to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by March 19, 2024.
The Court DENIES Defendant City of Los Angeles’s requests for sanctions on the motions to compel responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories.
The Court GRANTS Defendant City of Los Angeles’s request for sanctions on the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, and orders Plaintiff Bessy Silva and her counsel to pay Defendant City of Los Angeles $125.00 by March 17, 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.
[1] The City
should have filed a separate motion for each type of discovery. The Court will nonetheless address the
motion.