Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV00213, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00213    Hearing Date: November 20, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Benmoshe, v. Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC

CASE NO.:                24SMCV00213

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses

HEARING DATE:   11/20/2024

Legal Standard

 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. (CCP § 2030.290(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.) 

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP section 2031.010 inspection demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. 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. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required. 

Pursuant to CCP section 2033.280(b), a 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). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘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 § 2023.010 et seq.” (CCP, § 2033.280(b).) The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA admitted, “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.” (CCP, § 2033.280(c).) 

ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff Victoria Benmoshe moves to compel Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America (“JLRNA”) to respond to the following discovery: a) Request for Production of Documents, Set One; b) Form Interrogatories, Set One; c) Special Interrogatories, Set One; and d) Requests for Admission, Set One. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in the amount of $7,489.20 against JLRNA and counsel of record.

JLRNA served verified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery, including the Requests for Admissions rendering the Motion moot. On March 19, 2024, JLRNA served its initial responses to each of the subject discovery devices. (Cho Decl., ¶ 3.) On October 10, 2024, JLRNA provided its verifications to its responses to the responses. (Cho Decl., ¶4.)

While the motion is moot by the submission of substantive responses, the issues of sanctions are not moot. In fact, the Court must sanction any party that unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response, “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.” (See, e.g., CCP, § 2030.290(c).) As the RFAs, sanctions must be imposed without exception. (Id., §2033.280.) The record makes clear that JLRNA failed to respond to the subject discovery until serving verifications a month after these motions were filed. Thus, JLRNA’s discovery misconduct necessitated the instant motion. Sanctions are therefore mandatory.

            The Court finds the requested sanctions of $7,489.20 per motion to be unreasonable in light of the relative simplicity of the motions and substantial overlap between the motions. As such, the Court will impose a reasonable, total sanction of $4,306.80.

Accordingly, the motions are MOOT. Sanctions are imposed in the reduced total amount of $4,306.80, inclusive of costs, against JLRNA and its counsel of record. Sanctions are to be paid within 30 days to Plaintiff’s counsel.