Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV27877, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV27877 Hearing Date: February 8, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 26, 2022, Plaintiff Anthony Holt (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), City of Long Beach (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), California Department of Transportation, and Does 1-50 for dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 815.2 and Vehicle Code section 17001.
On October 20, 2022, the City filed an answer. On October 28, 2022, the County filed an answer. On October 31, 2022, Defendant The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, erroneously sued as California Department of Transportation (“State”), filed an answer. On November 21, 2022, LACMTA filed an answer.
On April 13, 2023, the Court dismissed the County without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. On May 11, 2023, the Court dismissed the State without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On November 30, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.
On December 18, 2023, LACMTA filed motions (1) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, (2) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, (3) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, sets one and two, and (4) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. The motions were set for hearing on February 8, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed oppositions.
Trial is currently scheduled for February 23, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
LACMTA requests that the Court order Plaintiff to serve verified code-compliant responses to the request for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories and produce the requested documents without objections. LACMTA also asks the Court to order that matters specified in the requests for admission are deemed admitted.
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 8, 2023, LACMTA served a request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories, sets one and two, and requests for admission, set one, on Plaintiff.
Responses were due June 8, 2023. Plaintiff did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time LACMTA filed these motions.
The Court grants LACMTA’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the request 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 22, 2024.
The Court grants LACMTA’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission and deems those matters admitted.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion to compel Plaintiff Anthony Holt’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiff Anthony Holt to provide verified code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by February 22, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion to compel Plaintiff Anthony Holt’s responses to form interrogatories, set two, and orders Plaintiff Anthony Holt to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections by February 22, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, and deems those matters admitted.
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.