Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV01609, Date: 2023-11-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01609    Hearing Date: November 9, 2023    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:                           Wu-Wei Chu v. Tai-Li Chu

Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted First Set Requests for Admission Propounded to Defendant Tai-Li Chu and for Sanctions; and

.     Motion for an Order Compelling Responses to First Set Form Interrogatories and for Sanctions 

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for an order deeming admitted first set Requests for Admission propounded to Defendant Tai-Li Chu as moot. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $510.00 against Defendant Tai-Li Chu. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid within 20 days of the Court’s order. 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling responses to first set Form Interrogatories as moot. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $510.00 against Defendant Tai-Li Chu. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid within 20 days of the Court’s order. 

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

BACKGROUND

This is an unlawful detainer action. On May 31, 2023, Plaintiff Wu-Wei Chu (Plaintiff) filed this action against DefendantTai-Li Chu (Defendant) and Does 1 through 10 for unlawful detainer. 

On October 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order deeming admitted first set of Requests for Admission and a motion for an order compelling responses to first set Form Interrogatories against Defendant. On November 6, 2023, Defendant opposed the motions. On November 7, 2023, Plaintiff replied. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Notwithstanding subdivision (a), in an unlawful detainer action or other proceeding under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 1159) of Title 3 of Part 3, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall have five days from the date of service to respond, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (b).)

Notwithstanding subdivision (a), in an unlawful detainer action or other proceeding under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 1159) of Title 3 of Part 3, the party to whom the request is directed shall have at least five days from the date of service to respond, unless on motion of the requesting party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response. 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves the Court to issue an order deeming the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admissions, Set One admitted as to Defendant, and for an order compelling responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One against Defendant. Plaintiff served the underlying discovery requests on Defendant on August 28, 2023, and did not receive any responses by the time Plaintiff filed the motions, despite having granted extensions and otherwise engaged in meet and confer efforts. (Rao Decls., ¶¶ 2-9.) 

            Defendant’s oppositions indicate that Defendant provided Plaintiff with verified responses to these discovery requests. (Young Decls., Exs. A, B.) The Court finds Defendant’s responses moot Plaintiff’s motions. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions as moot. 

            Nevertheless, the Court may still consider the issue of sanctions. "[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407.) Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses…the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.” (Id. at pp. 408-409.) This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.” (Id. at p. 408.) If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.” (Id. at p. 409; see also 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 no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed”].) 

Plaintiff properly attempted to resolve these discovery issues before bringing these motions, even though such meeting and conferring was not technically required for these motions. (See Rao Decls., ¶¶ 2-9; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.) The actions of Defendant unnecessarily caused Plaintiff to file these motions. The Court is not persuaded that Defendant was unable to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests due to health concerns when she was able to sit for a deposition. (Rao Decls., ¶ 8.) It also simply does not make sense that Defendant would on the one hand be unable to answer questions from Defendant’s attorney about Plaintiff’s discovery requests but then be able to sit and answer questions from Plaintiff’s attorney in a deposition. 

            The Court therefore awards monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the reduced amount of $510.00 for each motion. This is comprised of 1.0 hour preparing each motion, plus 0.5 hours appearing at the hearing on the motions, for a total of 1.5 hours, multiplied by the hourly rate of $300.00, plus $60.00 for each filing fee.             

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for an order deeming admitted first set Requests for Admission propounded to Defendant Tai-Li Chiu as moot. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $510.00 against Defendant Tai-Li Chu. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid within 20 days of the Court’s order. 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling responses to first set Form Interrogatories as moot. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $510.00 against Defendant Tai-Li Chu. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid within 20 days of the Court’s order. 

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