Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV06219, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV06219 Hearing Date: November 20, 2023 Dept: 28
Having reviewed the motions to compel discovery responses and deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff James Scoggins (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ji Jun Feng (“Feng”) and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to add Defendant Superstar Trucking, Inc. as Doe 1.
On April 24, 2023, Feng filed an answer.
On October 24, 2023, Feng filed (1) a motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to request for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions, (2) a motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, (3) a motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, and (4) a motion to deem facts admitted and for sanctions. Plaintiff has not filed oppositions.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Inspection demand
“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
“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
“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 April 24, 2023, Feng served Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, and Requests for Admission, Set One, on Plaintiff.
Responses were due on May 26, 2023. Plaintiff failed to provide timely responses. Feng now moves to compel code-compliant responses and deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission.
The Court grants the motion to compel 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 December 20, 2023.
The Court grants the motions to compel responses to the special and form interrogatories and orders Plaintiff to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections by December 20, 2023.
The Court grants the motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission and deems the matters specified in the requests for admission to be admitted.
Feng requests monetary sanctions of $1,810.00 for each motion based on seven hours of attorney’s work at a rate of $250.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee. Counsel spent three hours drafting each motion and anticipated spending three hours replying to any opposition and one hour attending the hearing on the motion.
The motions are substantially similar, they are unopposed, and they are set to be heard together. The Court awards sanctions of $1,490.00 for all four motions based on five hours of attorney’s work at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour and four filing fees.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Ji Jun Feng’s motion to compel Plaintiff James Scoggins to respond to request for production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiff James Scoggins to provide verified, code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by December 20, 2023.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Ji Jun Feng’s motion to compel Plaintiff James Scoggins to respond to special interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff James Scoggins to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections by December 20, 2023.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Ji Jun Feng’s motion to compel Plaintiff James Scoggins to respond to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff James Scoggins to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections by December 20, 2023.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Ji Jun Feng’s motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission. The Court deems the matters specified in the requests for admission to be admitted.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Ji Jun Feng’s request for sanctions and orders Plaintiff James Scoggins and his counsel to pay Defendant Ji Jun Feng $1,490.00 by December 20, 2023.
Moving party is to give notice of this ruling.