Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 21GDCV00960, Date: 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV00960    Hearing Date: January 3, 2023    Dept: P

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

            I.         INTRODUCTION

            This is an Unruh action. Plaintiff Perla Mageno is a visually impaired person who requires screen-reading software to access the internet. She sues Defendant Sancho’s Tacos, Inc. alleging its website contains barriers that prevented her from using it to access the services and products Sancho’s Tacos offers.

             Before the Court are four discovery motions, none of which is opposed. The three motions to compel responses are granted and sanctions are awarded. The motion to deem matters admitted is moot except as to sanctions as Mageno indicates that untimely responses were served while the motion was pending.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

            Interrogatories

            Code Civ. Proc. §2030.290

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). 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 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.

(2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.

(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a 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. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

            Requests for Production

            Code Civ. Proc. §2031.300

If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply:

(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). 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 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280.

(2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.

(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

            Requests for Admission

            Code Civ. Proc. §2033.280

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

(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). 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.

(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, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

(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. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.

 //

//

//

III.      ANALYSIS

            As noted, Mageno served Sancho’s Tacos with four sets of discovery: Form Interrogatories; Special Interrogatories; Requests for Production; Requests for Admission. All discovery was served in June 2022. When no responses were provided, a meet and confer letter was sent to defense counsel in August 2022. Declaration of Josesph R. Manning, Jr., Exhibit B. When that failed to elicit responses, these motions followed.

            No opposition has been filed. However, based on Mageno’s reply brief, the motion to deem matters admitted has been mooted by the service of untimely responses while these motions were pending. As to that motion, the only issue remaining is sanctions. All other motions are granted to the extent not rendered moot, and sanctions are granted as to each.

            Counsel for Mageno indicates that two hours will be spent on each motion; this time includes drafting the motion and reply and appearing at the hearing. At his reasonable hourly rate of $475, this amounts to $950 per motion. The Court finds this amount reasonable and awards such sanctions in full.

IV.      CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Mageno’s motion to deem matters admitted is denied as moot except as to sanctions. Mageno’s motions to compel are granted. Sancho’s Tacos is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One, within 20 days of notice of this order. Sancho’s Tacos and its attorney of record are jointly ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $950 per motion within 30 days of service of this order. Mageno is ordered to provide notice. 

Dated:                                                                        _______________________________

                                                                                          MARGARET OLDENDORF

                                                                                 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT