Judge Mel Red Recana, Case Number: 20STCV45068, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling

All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Demand for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,810.00

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,810.00

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Have Matters in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions Deemed Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,810.00

The Court considered the moving papers. All three Motions are granted, and the Court will impose sanctions on Defendant, and award them to Plaintiff in the amount of $880.00, inclusive of all three Motions. Defendant is ordered to provide responses and monetary sanctions within 20 days of this order.

Rexford Industrial – 701 Kingshill, LLC (Plaintiff) is the owner and lessor of 16830 Avalon Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90746. On February 5, 2010, Plaintiff entered into a lease with AutoCom, Inc. (Defendant) as lessee. Plaintiff alleges that after the last made payment in March of 2020, AutoCom breached the lease.

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Demand for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,810.00

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,810.00

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Have Matters in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions Deemed Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,810.00 (hereinafter, the Motions)

“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…(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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2031.300)

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, subds. (b), (c).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.290, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served and no meet and confer is required when a party does not respond to discovery requests. 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.)

Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.250, provides, in pertinent part, that “[w]ithin 30 days after service of the request for admissions . . . the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party.” A motion to deem admitted requests for admissions lies based upon a showing of failure to respond timely. (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280(b); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, disapproved on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983.) Requests for admissions must be deemed admitted where no responses in substantial compliance was served before the hearing. (CCP §2033.280(c).) As to motions to deem matters admitted, no meet and confer is required. (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 393, 395, overruled on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 973, 983. Also see Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 904–906, 169 Cal.Rptr. 42 [rejecting argument that state rule of court requiring informal meet and confer applied to motion where no response at all had been made to interrogatory requests, reasoning that because objections had been waived for failure to timely answer, there was “nothing to ‘resolve’ with the meaning” of the rule)].)

Plaintiff provides the Declaration of Jason J. Stillman (Stillman Decl.) for all three Motions. The Stillman Decl. states that on June 15, 2023, Plaintiff served all three discovery requests on Defendant. After a three-week extension was granted on July 11, 2023, to Defense counsel, H. Jack Kakoaian, Matt Cortez substituted as counsel for Defendant. (Stillman Decl., ¶¶3-4.) Mr. Cortez then requested and was granted a further 30-day extension on August 23, 2023. (Stillman Decl., ¶5.) On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Mr. Cortez to inquire as to the status of the discovery responses, however, Plaintiff’s counsel only received a response on December 5, 2023, in which Mr. Cortez communicated that he had lost contact with his client. (Stillman Decl., ¶7.) As of January 24, 2024, no responses had been received for any of the discovery requests. (Stillman Decl., ¶8.) Plaintiff then filed the instant Motions. As such the Motions are granted and sanctions are warranted.

· Counsel anticipated spending 3 hours reviewing opposition papers, preparing for and attending the hearing.

Considering the similarities between the Motions, that Defense counsel cannot make contact with their client, and that no opposition was filed, the Court will impose sanctions on Defendant, and award them to Plaintiff in the amount of $880.00, inclusive of all three Motions.

Accordingly, all three Motions are granted, and the Court will impose sanctions on Defendant, and award them to Plaintiff in the amount of $880.00, inclusive of all three Motions. Defendant is ordered to provide responses and monetary sanctions within 20 days of this order.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Case No.: 20STCV45068