Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV34102, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV34102, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34102 Hearing Date: April 3, 2024 Dept: 30

DORIS DIAZ, AN INDIVIDUAL vs SIMON PARK, AN INDIVIDUAL

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Request for Production, and to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted, Sets Two, are DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in part. Defendant Simon Park is ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $560 within 20 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Legal Standard

Compel Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905–906.)

Deem RFAs Admitted

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (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…. 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…. (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.

Compel RPDs

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)

Under CCP section 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

Discussion

On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Request for Production, Set Two, and Request for Admissions, Set Two on Defendant. (Berkley Decl., ¶ 4; Exh. 1.) On December 22, 2023, Defendant Park served unverified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery request. (Id., Exh. 2.) To date, verifications have not been served. (Id., ¶ 12.)

In opposition, Defendant argues it served verified responses on March 2, 2024. Counsel for Defendant made frequent, ongoing, and continuous efforts to obtain timely verifications from Defendant; however, Defendant did not provide meaningful response to the communication made by his counsel to obtain his cooperation and assistance in this action. (Caros Decl., ¶¶ 8-12, 17.) Defendant also argues that it did not waive its objections

because it served responses with objections within the time to respond provided by the extension. (Id., ¶ 5.)

The Court finds the motion is moot as verified responses have now been provided. Further, Defendant’s objections were not waived because Defendant responded within the time provided by Plaintiff’s extension to respond, and objections do not need to be verified; the attorney’s signature is enough. (See Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.)

Plaintiff also requests sanctions. Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) mandate the imposition of sanctions when the motion is unsuccessfully opposed. Here, as the motion was not unsuccessfully opposed, the request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions under CCP section 2023.010 for the misuse of discovery is also denied, as "sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery.” (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504.)

However, sanctions are mandatory in connection with the motion to deem the truth of the matter in the requests for admissions admitted. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) Thus, the request for sanctions in connection with this motion is granted. However, the amount awarded is reduced due to the simplicity of this motion. In addition, sanctions are only imposed against Defendant as defense counsel declared that he made efforts to obtain verification. As such, the Court imposes sanctions against Defendant Simon Park in the amount of $560 ($500 per hour for one hour, plus $60 filing fee) to be paid within 20 days of this order.