Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 23STCV26981, Date: 2024-11-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV26981, Date: 2024-11-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV26981 Hearing Date: November 5, 2024 Dept: 61

DANA VARON vs DAMULS 2244 LLC, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant Westside Realty Group, Inc.’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and to Deem Matters Admitted against Plaintiff Dana Varon are DENIED as moot. Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $900.00.

Moving party 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 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).)

Defendant Westside Realty Group, Inc. (Defendant) moves to compel Plaintiff Dana Varon’s (Plaintiff) responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and to deem requests for admission admitted against Plaintiff. Defendant states that it served discovery upon Plaintiff on January 26, 2024, with responses due by March 1, 2024. (Miller Decl. ¶¶ 2–3.) Defendant provided extensions, and the agreed extended deadline was May 3, 2024. (Miller Decl. ¶¶ 5–8.) But as of the filing of the motions on May 24, 2024, no responses were provided. (Miller Decl. ¶¶ 8–9.) Plaintiff in opposition contends that responses were provided on July 24, 2024, after the motions were filed. (Rand-Lewis Decl. ¶ 2, Exhs. A–C.)

Defendant in reply acknowledges that the responses have been provided. (Reply at p. 2.) The motions are therefore properly 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).)

The mootness of the motions does not moot the request for sanctions. A 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.” (CRC Rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

Defendant seeks $900 with respect to the two motions to compel, representing for each motion four hours of attorney work at $210 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee (Miller Decl. ¶ 10), and for the motion to deem admitted, $1,320, representing six hours of attorney work at the same rate, plus another filing fee. (Miller Decl. ¶ 10.) Defendant thus seeks a total sanctions amount of $3,120.00.

This amount includes some duplicative charges. Each motion seeks compensation for two hours to prepare for and attend hearing on these motions, which will be heard together, meaning that only one charge is reasonable. Thus four hours ($840) is properly deducted from the sanctions award. Another hour shall be deducted, given two duplicative 0.5-hour charges for meeting and conferring included with each motion. Further, Plaintiff provided responses which renders this motion moot. No argument to the merits of the motion will be necessary except as to sanctions. Given the purpose of sanctions, and that it is mandatory for motions to deem admissions admitted, the court reduces the sanctions to $900.

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks $2,711.76 in sanctions, representing six hours of attorney work at $450 per hour, plus $11.76 in filing expenses. (Rand-Lewis Decl. ¶¶ 36–37.) But Plaintiff is not entitled to sanctions, because Plaintiff provides no explanation for the failure to provide responses until faced with the present motions, despite requesting and receiving several extensions.

Sanctions are therefore awarded against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $900.00.