Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 22PSCV00465, Date: 2024-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV00465, Date: 2024-02-22 Tentative Ruling

1.      Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents;
2.      Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; and
3.      Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s discovery motions. The truth of the matters and the genuineness of the documents specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One are hereby deemed admitted. Plaintiff must also serve complete and verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days of the Court’s order.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions with respect to the Requests for Admission, Set One, in the reduced amount of $675.00. Plaintiff must pay said monetary sanctions to counsel for Defendant within 20 days of the Court’s order. The Court DENIES Defendant’s other requests for monetary sanctions.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

This is a business dispute case. On May 17, 2022, plaintiff California Home Solar Technology, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Shuai Deng (Defendant) and Does 1 to 25, alleging causes of action for conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, waste of corporate assets, and constructive trust.

On January 29, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for an order deeming admitted truth of facts and genuineness of documents for Requests for Admission, Set One, and a motion to compel responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. On February 8, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to compel initial discovery for Form Interrogatories, Set One. The motions are unopposed.

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (b), the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further 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.” (Id., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

When a party to whom an inspection demand is directed fails to respond under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (b), a party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. A party who fails to provide timely responses waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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.” (Id., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

A party upon whom a request for admissions has been made has 30 days to respond. (Code Civ. Proc., §¿2033.250, subd. (a).) The court upon motion may extend the time for response. (Id.) When a party fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a motion to deem the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests admitted. (Id., §¿2033.280, subd. (b).) The court must make this order unless it finds that the responding party has served, prior to the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, section 2033.220. (Id., §¿2033.280, subd. (c).) The court must impose a monetary sanction on the party whose failure to serve a timely response necessitated the motion to deem the requests for admission admitted. (Id.)

The Court notes that Defendant did not file the motion to compel initial discovery for Form Interrogatories, Set One, until February 8, 2024. This is untimely. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) However, the Court notes that the proof of service filed on January 29, 2024, indicates that Defendant served the motion on Plaintiff on January 25, 2024. (Proof of Service (1/29/24).) Given Plaintiff received adequate notice of Defendant’s motion, the Court will still consider it. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (d); Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202.) Nevertheless, the Court admonishes Defendant to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure going forward.

Defendant served three sets of discovery requests on Plaintiff on September 18, 2023, i.e., Requests for Admission, Set One, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One. (Sullivan Decls., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Defendant indicates that despite granting multiple extensions, Plaintiff has yet to respond to those discovery requests. (Sullivan Decls., ¶¶ 3-6.) Defendant seeks an order from the Court deeming admitted, the truth of the matters and genuineness of documents specified in Requests for Admission, Set One, and for Plaintiff to provide responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One. The Court finds Defendant’s motions to be well taken and GRANTS them.

Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions for each motion. Monetary sanctions for motions to deem requests for admissions admitted are mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions in connection with the motion for order deeming admitted the truth of the matters and genuineness of documents specified in Requests for Admission, Set One, in the reduced amount of $675.00, comprised of 1.5 hours for preparing the motion and appearing at the hearing on the motion, multiplied by the hourly rate of $400.00, plus $75.00 for the motion filing fees.

As for the other discovery motions, the Court exercises its discretion to decline to grant monetary sanctions because Plaintiff did not oppose the motions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) “It is well settled, also, that a general provision is controlled by one that is special, the latter being treated as an exception to the former. A specific provision relating to a particular subject will govern in respect to that subject, as against a general provision, although the latter, standing alone, would be broad enough to include the subject to which the more particular provision relates.” (Rose v. State (1942) 19 Cal.2d 713, 723–724 [123 P.2d 505].) Thus, this Court looks to sections 2030.290, subdivision (c) and 2031.300, subdivision (c), and not the general provision providing for sanctions for “conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process” found in Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. (See Muller v. Fresno Community Hospital & Medical Center (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 887, 906.) Thus, the Court DENIES Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions with respect to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.