Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV28085, Date: 2024-12-24 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 23STCV28085 Hearing Date: December 24, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 15, 2023, Plaintiff Syed Sobhan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Mabel Ma (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On August 16, 2024, Defendant filed an answer.
On October 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed (1) a motion to compel Defendant’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, (2) a motion to compel Defendant’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, and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on December 24, 2024. On December 11, 2024, Defendant filed oppositions. On December 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 14, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff
asks the Court (1) to compel Defendant’s responses to special interrogatories,
set one, (2) to compel Defendant’s responses to form interrogatories, set one,
and (3) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. Plaintiff also asks the Court to impose
sanctions on Defendant.
Defendant 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
Defendant opposes the motions, stating (1) Defendant’s counsel could not locate Defendant, (2) after making diligent efforts to locate Defendant, Defendant’s counsel contacted Defendant on December 9, 2024, and (3) on December 10, 2024, Defendant served verified responses to the discovery requests. Defendant has not included copies of the discovery responses in her opposition papers.
Plaintiff argues that, even though Defendant waived any objections to the discovery requests by failing to serve timely responses, Defendant’s late responses contain objections. Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendant to provide responses to the special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admission without objections.
“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.)
Based on the reasoning of Sinaiko, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant's responses to special interrogatories and form interrogatories. The Court orders Defendant to serve verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories and form interrogatories without objections by January 23, 2025.
Plaintiff has not argued or shown that Defendant’s late responses to requests for admission are not “in substantial compliance with [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c). If Plaintiff believes that Defendant’s responses to the requests for admission are deficient, Plaintiff may move to compel further responses in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290.
Plaintiff requests sanctions based on the motions to compel responses to special interrogatories and form interrogatories. Defendant asks the Court to refrain from opposing sanctions because Defendant’s counsel acted diligently to locate her. The Court finds that Defendant did not act with substantial justification and no other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Defendant was aware of the litigation and chose to avoid contact with her counsel. In addition, Defendant's counsel should have known that Defendant had waived any objections to the discovery requests. Defendant's counsel nonetheless included objections in Defendant's late discovery responses.
Plaintiff requests $1,050.00 in sanctions on each motion to compel interrogatory responses based on three hours of attorney time at a rate of $350.00 per hour. Counsel spent one hour preparing the moving papers and anticipated spending one hour to review the opposition papers and prepare a reply and one hour to prepare for and attend the hearing. The Court grants Plaintiff $750.00 in sanctions based on three hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour for both motions to compel responses to interrogatories (that is, $375.00 for each motion to compel).
“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 [a] motion” under Code of Civil Procedure section
2033.280, subdivision (b). (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Plaintiff
requests $1,050.00 in sanctions based on three hours of attorney time at a rate
of $350.00 per hour. Counsel spent one
hour preparing the moving papers and anticipated spending one hour to review
the opposition papers and prepare a reply and one hour to prepare for and
attend the hearing. The Court grants
Plaintiff $750.00 in sanctions based on three hours of attorney time at a
reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Syed Sobhan’s motion to compel Defendant Mabel Ma’s responses to special interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Defendant Mabel Ma to serve verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by January 23, 2025.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Syed Sobhan’s motion to compel Defendant Mabel Ma’s responses to form interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Defendant Mabel Ma to serve verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by January 23, 2025.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Syed Sobhan’s motion to deem admitted requests for admission, set one, served on Defendant Mabel Ma.
The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff Syed Sobhan’s requests for sanctions and orders Defendant Mabel Ma and her counsel to pay Plaintiff Syed Sobhan $1,500.00 ($750.00 plus $750.00) by January 23, 2025. In all other respects, the Court DENIES the sanctions requests.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.