Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV09647, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09647    Hearing Date: June 10, 2025    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND 

On April 28, 2023, Plaintiff Cindy Gomez Escamilla (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Equitable Plaza, LLC (“Plaza”), Jamison Services, Inc. (“Jamison”), and Does 1-25 for general negligence and premises liability. 

On July 11, 2023, Equitable and Jamison filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Schindler Elevator Corporation (“Schindler”) and Roes 1-50 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, and express indemnify.  On August 21, 2023, Schindler filed an answer to the cross-complaint. 

 On August 1, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Schindler as Doe 1.  On September 4, 2024, Schindler filed an answer to the complaint. 

On May 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed (1) a motion to compel Jamison’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, (2) a motion to compel Jamison’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, and (3) a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Jamison and for sanctions.  The motions were set for hearing on June 10, 2025.  On May 28, 2025, Jamison filed oppositions.  On June 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed replies. 

Trial is scheduled for December 8, 2025. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Plaintiff asks the Court (1) to compel Jamison’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, (2) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Jamison, and (3) to impose sanctions on Jamison. 

Jamison asks the Court to deny the motions.

LEGAL STANDARD 

A.   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.) 

B.   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.   Plaintiff’s motions to compel Jamison’s responses to special interrogatories and form interrogatories 

On January 27, 2025, Plaintiff served special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Jamison.  With extensions, responses were due March 31, 2025.  Jamison did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Plaintiff filed these motions.  Plaintiff now asks the Court to compel Jamison to serve verified code-compliant responses without objections. 

Jamison opposes the motions, stating that it served responses to the special interrogatories and form interrogatories on May 28, 2025.  Jamison blames the delay in serving responses on the prior handling attorney, who left the law firm representing Jamison on May 9, 2025.  Jamison asks the Court to relieve it of the waiver of objections resulting from its late service of responses and deny Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.  Jamison has not provided copies of its late responses as exhibits to its opposition. 

In reply, Plaintiff asserts that Jamison’s responses served on May 28, 2025 were not verified.  Plaintiff also observes that Jamison’s responses were due on March 31, 2025, over one month before the previous handling attorney left the firm representing Jamison on May 9, 2025. 

“If a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, then under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2030.290, subdivision (a), it waives all objections and the burden shifts to that party to demonstrate that it is entitled to relief from the waiver.”  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407 (Sinaiko).)  “Under section 2030.290, therefore, once a party has failed to serve timely interrogatory responses, the trial court has the authority to hear a propounding party’s motion to compel responses under section 2030.290, subdivision (b), regardless of whether a party serves an untimely response.  If a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, then by operation of law, all objections that it could assert to those interrogatories are waived.  [Citation.]  Unless that party obtains relief from its waiver, the propounding party is entitled to move under subdivision (b) for an order compelling the response to which the propounding party is entitled – that is, a response without objection, and that substantially complies with the provisions governing the form [citation] and completeness [citation] of interrogatory responses.”  (Id. at p. 408.) 

In requiring substantial compliance with “the provisions governing the form [citation] and completeness [citation] of interrogatory responses,” Sinaiko does not appear to require a verification.  (See Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 408, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a)(1) [requiring substantial compliance with Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, 2030.240, but not 2030.250, which addresses verification].) 

Nonetheless, the Court does not find that Jamison’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a)(2).)  Jamison has not provided a satisfactory explanation for why it did not serve responses by March 31, 2025, over one month before the handling attorney left the firm.  The Court therefore declines to relieve Jamison from its waiver of objections.

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motions to compel and orders Jamison to serve verified code-compliant responses to special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, without objections, by June 20, 2025. 

Plaintiff asks the Court to impose sanctions of $810.00 on Jamison on each motion based on three hours of attorney time at a rate of $250.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee.  Plaintiff’s counsel spent 1.5 hours to prepare each motion and anticipates spending 1.5 hours to prepare for and attend the hearing.  The Court grants $560.00 on each motion based on two hours of attorney time and one filing fees. 

B.   Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Jamison 

On January 27, 2025, Plaintiff served requests for admission, set one, on Jamison.  Jamison did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Plaintiff filed this motion.  Plaintiff asks the Court to deem admitted matters specified in the requests for admission. 

In response, Jamison asserts that on May 28, 2025, it served responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admission.  Jamison has not provided copies of the responses. 

In reply, Plaintiff asserts that Jamison’s responses served on May 28, 2025 were not verified. 

The Court may not deem admitted the truth of matters specified in requests for admission when the responding party 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 does not require the responding party to comply, in addition, with the verification requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.240 to avoid an order deeming admitted matters specified in requests for admission.  Plaintiff has not shown that Jamison's late responses are not in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.  The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s request to deem admitted 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).)  Plaintiff asks the Court to impose sanctions of $810.00 on Jamison based on three hours of attorney time at a rate of $250.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee.  Plaintiff’s counsel spent 1.5 hours to prepare the motion and anticipates spending 1.5 hours to prepare for and attend the hearing.  The Court grants $560.00 in sanctions based on two hours of attorney time and one filing fee. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Cindy Gomez Escamilla’s motion to compel Defendant Jamison Services, Inc.’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and orders Defendant Jamison Services, Inc. to serve verified code-compliant responses to special interrogatories, set one, by June 20, 2025.  The Court grants in part Cindy Gomez Escamilla’s request for sanctions and orders Defendant Jamison Services, Inc. and its counsel to pay Plaintiff Cindy Gomez Escamilla $560.00 by July 10, 2025. 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Cindy Gomez Escamilla’s motion to compel Defendant Jamison Services, Inc.’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Defendant Jamison Services, Inc. to serve verified code-compliant responses to form interrogatories, set one, by June 20, 2025. The Court grants in part Cindy Gomez Escamilla’s request for sanctions and orders Defendant Jamison Services, Inc. and its counsel to pay Plaintiff Cindy Gomez Escamilla $560.00 by July 10, 2025. 

The Court DENIES in part Plaintiff Cindy Gomez Escamilla’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. The Court grants in part Cindy Gomez Escamilla’s request for sanctions and orders Defendant Jamison Services, Inc. and its counsel to pay Plaintiff Cindy Gomez Escamilla $560.00 by July 10, 2025. 

Moving party is to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.