Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 23STCV09061, Date: 2024-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV09061, Date: 2024-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09061 Hearing Date: June 10, 2024 Dept: 61

DANIEL MOORE, AN INDIVIDUAL vs MARIA LITWIN, AN INDIVIDUAL

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Daniel Moore’s Motions to Compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and to Deem Matters Admitted Against Defendant Marta Litwin are DENIED. No sanctions are awarded.

Defendant to give notice.

DISCUSSION

A propounding party may demand a responding party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

A party who fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand for inspection waives

Monday, June 10, 2024

any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

Likewise, “[a]ny party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.010.) If a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admissions, “[t]he 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” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 subd. (b).)

A party who fails to timely respond to requests for admission waives all objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff Daniel Moore moves to compel responses to requests for production and special interrogatories, and to deem matters admitted against Defendant Marta Litwin (Defendant). Plaintiff served the discovery at issue on October 6, 2023. (Petersen Decl. ¶ 4.) Responses were due, per agreement of the parties, by December 16, 2023. (Petersen Decl. ¶ 5.) No responses have been provided. (Petersen Decl. ¶ 6.)

Defendant in response contends that responses to the requests for documents and admissions on April 22, 2024, and responses to the form interrogatories on May 9, 2024. (Weisskopf Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant’s counsel claims that the failure to provide responses were the result of medical issues confronting the wife of Defendant’s counsel and his mother-in-law. (Weisskopf Decl. ¶ 3.)

As responses have been provided, the motions are DENIED as moot.

II. SANCTIONS

The prevailing party on a motion to compel is generally entitled to monetary sanctions, 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, 2031.300.) Sanctions are also mandatory against a party whose failure to serve responses to requests for admission makes the motion necessary. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff here seeks $1,686.65 in connection with each motion here, representing five hours of attorney work at $325 per hour, plus a $61.65 filing fee, for a total fee request of $5,059.95. (Petersen Decl. ¶ 8.)

Here, no sanctions are appropriate, as the failure to serve responses by the date agreed was substantially justified by the medical issues described in Defendant’s responses, and responses were served prior to the due date for any opposition to this motion.