Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV29690, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV29690 Hearing Date: November 21, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff Ivan Johnson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Prudent Security Solutions, McDonald’s, and Does 1-10 for battery and negligence.
On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant McDonald’s USA, LLC, as Doe 1.
On July 7, 2024, Defendant Laddaran Management Corporation, doing business as McDonald’s (erroneously sued as McDonald’s USA, LLC) (“McDonald’s”), filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Prudent Security Solutions, Inc., and Does 1-10 for apportionment of fault, indemnification, express indemnity, and declaratory relief.
On September 23, 2024, McDonald’s filed (1) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, (2) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and (3) a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. (McDonald’s should have filed separate motions for the special interrogatories and form interrogatories.) The motions were set for hearing on November 21, 2024. On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On November 14, 2024, McDonald’s filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 3, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
McDonald’s asks the Court to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. McDonald’s also asks the Court to impose sanctions on Plaintiff.
Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motions and sanctions requests.
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
Plaintiff admits that he failed to provide timely responses to McDonald’s’ discovery requests. (Opposition p. 3.) Plaintiff offers no reason for the delay. However, Plaintiff opposes McDonalds’s’ motions, arguing they are moot because Plaintiff served responses to the discovery requests “on or about October 01, 2024.” The responses are verified and do not include any objections.
Citing Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390 (Sinaiko), McDonald’s asks the Court to impose sanctions on Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s late service of responses to the request for production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories. In Sinaiko, the Court of Appeal held that service of an untimely interrogatory response “does not divest the trial court of authority to hear and grant a motion to compel responses under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2030.290.” (Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 396.) “In many cases involving untimely response, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial court has discretion to rule on the motion.” (Id. at p. 409; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) [“The Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though . . . the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed”].)
McDonald’s requests $800.00 in sanctions on its motion to compel responses to the special and form interrogatories and $800.00 in sanctions on its motion to compel responses to the request for production of documents. The requests are based on four hours of attorney time at a rate of $200.00 per hour for each motion. For each motion, counsel spent one hour preparing the moving papers and anticipated that he would spend one additional hour preparing for the hearing and potentially two hours writing a reply.
The Court grants $200.00 in sanctions on the motion to compel responses to the special and form interrogatories and $200.00 in sanctions on the motion to compel responses to the request for production of documents based on one hour of attorney time for each motion.
The Court is required to grant McDonald’s’ request for sanctions on its motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c) [“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”].) McDonald’s requests $1,000.00 in sanctions based on five hours of attorney time at a rate of $200.00 per hour. Counsel spent two hours preparing the moving papers and anticipated that he would spend one additional hour preparing for the hearing and potentially two hours writing a reply.
The Court grants $400.00 in sanctions on the motion to
deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission based on two hours of
attorney time, bringing the total sanctions award to $800.00.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES as moot the motion of Defendant Laddaran Management Corporation, doing business as
McDonald’s, to
compel Plaintiff Ivan Johnson’s responses to request for production of
documents, set one.
The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions of Defendant
Laddaran Management Corporation, doing business as McDonald’s, and orders Plaintiff Ivan Johnson and his counsel,
jointly and severally, to pay Defendant Laddaran Management Corporation, doing
business as McDonald’s, $200.00 in sanctions on the motion to compel responses to request for production of documents, set one, within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.
The
Court DENIES as moot the motion of Defendant Laddaran Management Corporation, doing business
as McDonald’s, to compel Plaintiff Ivan Johnson’s responses to special
interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one.
The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions of Defendant Laddaran
Management Corporation, doing business as McDonald’s, and orders Plaintiff Ivan Johnson and his counsel, jointly and
severally, to pay Defendant Laddaran Management Corporation, doing business as
McDonald’s, $200.00 in sanctions on the motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.
The Court orders Defendant Laddaran Management Corporation, doing business as McDonald’s, to pay the Court one additional filing fee because Defendant should have filed separate motions to compel responses to the special interrogatories and form interrogatories.
The
Court DENIES as moot the motion of Defendant Laddaran Management Corporation, doing business
as McDonald’s, to deem admitted matters specified in requests for
admission, set one, served on Plaintiff Ivan Johnson.
The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions of Defendant Laddaran
Management Corporation, doing business as McDonald’s, and orders Plaintiff Ivan Johnson and his counsel, jointly and
severally, to pay Defendant Laddaran Management Corporation, doing business as
McDonald’s, $400.00 in sanctions on the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.
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.