Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV31693, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV31693 Hearing Date: January 8, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers and late opposition declaration, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 27, 2023, Plaintiff Brenda Small (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Public Storage, Inc., PS Orangeco Holdings, Inc., and Does 1-50 for premises liability and negligence.
On January 22, 2024, Defendants Public Storage (sued as Public Storage, Inc.) (“Public Storage”) and PS Orangeco Holdings, Inc. (“Orangeco”) filed an answer.
On October 23, 2024, Orangeco and Public Storage filed the following motions:
(1) Orangeco’s
motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set two, and
for sanctions, to be heard on January 6, 2025
(2) Orangeco’s
motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and
for sanctions, set for hearing on January 7, 2025
(4) Public
Storage’s and Orangeco’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form
interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, to be heard on January 6, 2025
(5)
Public Storage’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form
interrogatories, set two, to be heard on January 6, 2025
(6)
Public Storage’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special
interrogatories, set two, and for sanctions, to be heard on January 7, 2025
(7) Public Storage’s motion to deem admitted the truth of matters specified in requests for admission, set two, served on Plaintiff and for sanctions, set for hearing on January 8, 2025.
On January 6, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a late declaration opposing the motions. (The Court exercises its discretion to consider the late declaration.)
The Court continued the hearings set for January 6 and 7, 2025 to January 8, 2025.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 25, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Orangeco and Public Storage ask the Court to grant (1) Orangeco’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set two, (2) Orangeco’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, (3) Orangeco’s motion to deem admitted the truth of matters specified in requests for admission, set two, served on Plaintiff, (4) Public Storage’s and Orangeco’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, (5) Public Storage’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set two, (6) Public Storage’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set two, and (7) Public Storage’s motion to deem admitted the truth of matters specified in requests for admission, set two, served on Plaintiff. Orangeco and Public Storage also ask the Court to impose sanctions on Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel.
Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motions and sanctions requests.
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
Plaintiff did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Public Storage and Orangeco filed these motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel states that Plaintiff served “objection free, verified responses on January 5, 2025.” (Portillo dec. ¶ 7 & attached January 5, 2025 email.) Plaintiff’s counsel has not provided the discovery responses for the Court’s review, however.
“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.)
Here, the Court assumes based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration that the interrogatory responses which Plaintiff served on January 5, 2025 contain no objections. However, the Court does not know if the interrogatory responses “substantially compl[y] with the provisions governing the form [citation] and completeness [citation] of interrogatory responses.” (Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 408.)
Similarly, the Court does not know if the responses to requests for admission served on January 5, 2025 are “in substantial compliance with [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
The Court therefore defers its ruling on the motions and the sanctions requests in the motions to compel interrogatory responses until the January 8, 2025 hearing (or later if necessary).
But “[i]t 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).) Public Storage and Orangeco each request $1,300.00 in sanctions on their motions to deem admitted the truth of matters specified in requests for admission based on four hours of attorney time at a rate of $310.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee. For each motion, counsel spent two hours drafting the motion and anticipated spending one hour to prepare a reply and one hour to attend the hearing.
The Court awards each Defendant $560.00 in sanctions
based on two hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour
and one filing fee.
CONCLUSION
The Court DEFERS ruling on the motions to compel responses to special and form interrogatories and motions to deem admitted the truth of matters specified in requests for admission filed by Defendants Public Storage and PS Orangeco Holdings, Inc.
The Court expects counsel for Defendants Public Storage and PS Orangeco Holdings, Inc., and Plaintiff Brenda Small to be prepared at the January 8, 2025 hearing to address (1) whether the responses to special and form interrogatories which Plaintiff served on January 5, 2025 “substantially compl[y] with the provisions governing the form [citation] and completeness [citation] of interrogatory responses” (Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 408), (2) whether the responses to requests for admission which Plaintiff served on January 5, 2025 are “in substantial compliance with [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 2033.220” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c)), and (3) whether Defendants continue to seek sanctions on their motions to compel responses to special and form interrogatories.
The Court GRANTS the request of Defendant Public Storage for sanctions on its motion to deem admitted the truth of matters specified in requests for admission, set two, and orders Plaintiff Brenda Small and her counsel to pay Defendant Public Storage $560.00 by February 7, 2025.
The Court GRANTS the request of Defendant PS Orangeco Holdings, Inc. for sanctions on its motion
to deem admitted the truth of matters specified in requests for admission, set two, and
orders Plaintiff Brenda Small and her counsel to pay Defendant PS Orangeco
Holdings, Inc. $560.00 by February 7, 2025.
Moving
parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.