Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV36330, Date: 2025-02-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV36330 Hearing Date: February 3, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 17, 2022, Plaintiff Shaquenta Clay (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Ralph’s Grocery Company, Kroger Company, and Does 1-25 for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.
On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Mark Brooks as Doe 1.
On March 30, 2023, Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company dba Ralphs (incorrectly named and served as Ralph’s Grocery Company) (“Ralph’s”) filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group (West Coast), Inc. (“Metro”) and Roes 1-100 for apportionment of fault, indemnification, and declaratory relief. On August 18, 2023, Metro filed an answer to Ralph’s’ cross-complaint. On November 18, 2024, the Court granted Ralph’s’ cross-complaint without prejudice at Ralph’s’ request.
On April 12, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Metro as Doe 2.
On August 18, 2023, Metro filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.
On December 6, 2024, Metro filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set two, special interrogatories, set two, requests for production of documents, set two and requests for admission, set two. (Metro should have filed four separate motions, one for each type of discovery.) The motion was set for hearing on February 3, 2025. On January 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition and request for waiver of objections. On January 27, 2025, Metro filed a reply.
Also on December 6, 2024, Metro filed a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set two, served on Plaintiff. The motion was set for hearing on January 28, 2025. The Court continued the hearing to February 3, 2025. On January 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition and request for waiver of objections. On January 21, 2025, Metro filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to February 3, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Metro asks the Court (1) to deem admitted the truth of matters specified in requests for admission, set two, served on Plaintiff, (2) to order Plaintiff to serve verified code-compliant responses to request for production of documents, set two, special interrogatories, set two, and form interrogatories, set two, without objections, and (3) to impose sanctions on Plaintiff.
Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motions and to grant relief from Plaintiff’s waiver of 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.”
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
A. Metro’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set two
On September 10, 2024, Metro served requests for admission, set two, on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Metro filed this motion on December 6, 2024. Metro asks the Court to deem admitted the truth of matters specified in the requests for admission.
Plaintiff states that she served responses to the requests for admission on December 16, 2024. The responses contained objections. Plaintiff contends that the responses substantially comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.
Because Plaintiff has not served verified responses to Metro’s requests for admission, set two, the Court grants Metro’s motion and deems admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission.
“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, subd. (c).) Metro requests sanctions of $1,685.00 based on five hours of attorney time at a rate of $325 per hour and a $60.00 filing fee. Counsel spent two hours preparing the moving papers and anticipated spending three hours preparing a reply and appearing for the hearing. The Court grants sanctions of $810.00 based on three hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour plus one filing fee.
B. Metro’s motions to compel discovery responses
On September 10, 2024, Metro served request for production of documents, set two, special interrogatories, set two, and form interrogatories, set two, on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Metro filed this motion on December 6, 2024. Metro asks the Court to order Plaintiff to serve code-compliant verified responses without objections.
Plaintiff states that she served responses to request for production of documents, set two, special interrogatories, set two, and form interrogatories, set two, on December 16, 2024. The responses contained objections.
In reply, Metro asserts that Plaintiff served responses on December 20, 2024 (not December 16, 2024) and the responses were unverified.
Because Plaintiff has not served verified responses to Metro’s request for production of documents, set two, special interrogatories, set two, and form interrogatories, set two, the Court grants Metro’s motion and orders Plaintiff to serve verified code-compliant responses without objections by March 5, 2025.
Metro requests sanctions of $2,010.00 based on six hours of attorney time at a rate of $325 per hour and a $60.00 filing fee. Counsel spent three hours preparing the moving papers and anticipated spending three hours preparing a reply and appearing for the hearing. The Court grants sanctions of $560.00 based on two hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour plus one filing fee.
C. Plaintiff's request for relief from waiver of objections
In Plaintiff’s opposition to Metro’s motions, Plaintiff asks the Court for relief from waiver of Plaintiff’s objections to the discovery requests. A request for relief from waiver of objections requires a noticed motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (a) [demand for inspection], 2033.280, subd. (a) [requests for admission].) The Court denies the requests without prejudice to noticed motions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group (West Coast), Inc.’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set two, served on Plaintiff Shaquenta Clay and deems the matters admitted. The Court grants Defendant Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group (West Coast), Inc.’s request for sanctions and orders Plaintiff Shaquenta Clay and her counsel to pay Defendant Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group (West Coast), Inc. $810.00 by March 5, 2025.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group (West Coast), Inc.’s motion to compel responses to request for production, set two, special interrogatories, set two, and form interrogatories, set two. The Court orders Plaintiff to serve code-compliant verified responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by March 5, 2025. The Court grants Defendant Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group (West Coast), Inc.’s request for sanctions and orders Plaintiff Shaquenta Clay and her counsel to pay Defendant Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group (West Coast), Inc. $560.00 by March 5, 2025.
The Court ORDERS Defendant Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group (West Coast), Inc. to pay the Los Angeles Superior Court $120.00 in filing fees to compensation for the failure to file separate motions to compel.
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.