Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 22STCV12365, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

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

Case Number: 22STCV12365    Hearing Date: May 17, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing date:              May 17, 2024

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Karen Osorio

Responding Party:       Defendant Los Angeles Dodgers LLC

(1)   Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One)

(2)   Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One)

(3)   Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One)

(4)   Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission (Set One)

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One). The court orders Defendant to serve responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), without objections, within 30 days of the date of this ruling.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the reduced amount of $460 for the motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One). The court orders defendant Los Angeles Dodgers LLC to pay $460 to plaintiff Karen Osorio, through her counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One). The court orders Defendant to serve responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One), without objections, within 30 days of the date of this ruling.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the reduced amount of $460 for the motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One). The court orders defendant Los Angeles Dodgers LLC to pay $460 to plaintiff Karen Osorio, through her counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One). The court orders Defendant to serve responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), without objections, within 30 days of the date of this ruling.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the reduced amount of $460 for the motion to compel responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One). The court orders defendant Los Angeles Dodgers LLC to pay $460 to plaintiff Karen Osorio, through her counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.

The court finds Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted Requests for Admission (Set One) is MOOT.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the reduced amount of $460 for the motion to deem admitted Requests for Admission (Set One). The court orders defendant Los Angeles Dodgers LLC to pay $460 to plaintiff Karen Osorio, through her counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.

Background

Plaintiffs Karen Osorio; Daniel Jacques; Danielle Rickie Jacques; and Demetrius Adrian Ramirez Jacques, by and through his guardian ad litem, Danielle Rickie Jacques filed this action on April 12, 2022 against defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, alleging causes of action for (1) Negligence; (2) Premises Liability; (3) Assault; (4) Battery; (5) False Imprisonment; (6) Violation of Federal Civil Rights; (7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (8) Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision. The Complaint alleges that Dodger non-sworn and off-duty sworn security employees dressed in dark polo shirts assaulted and battered Plaintiff. (Compl., ¶ 8.) Dodger employees who were off-duty sworn uniformed Los Angeles Police Department officers allegedly observed Plaintiffs being unlawfully assaulted and battered but did not intervene to assist Plaintiffs. (Id.)

On August 22, 2023, plaintiff Karen Osorio filed (1) a motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One); and (2) a motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (Set one). Defendant filed oppositions on January 30, 2024. Plaintiff replied on February 1, 2024.

Legal Standard

If a party to whom interrogatories were 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)-(c); see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) CCP § 2030.290 contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that needs to 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.)

If a party to whom requests for production of documents were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (CCP § 2031.300(b)-(c).) CCP § 2031.300 contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. The propounding party need not demonstrate good cause or satisfy a meet-and-confer requirement – all that needs to be shown in the moving papers is that a set of requests for production of documents was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403-04.)

Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under CCP § 2033.010, the propounding 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. (CCP § 2033.280(b).) CCP § 2033.280(c) states, in relevant part: “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.

Discussion

Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories and Form Interrogatories

Merits of the Motion

Plaintiff Karen Osorio moves compel responses from defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC to (1) Special Interrogatories (Set One); and (2) Form Interrogatories (Set One). Plaintiff contends Defendant served untimely responses, thereby waiving objections. Plaintiff argues Defendant’s responses do not moot these motions because they contain objections that were untimely served.

Defendant contends it served “hybrid” responses with both objections and substantive responses on November 1, 2022, which are sufficient to preserve objections. Defendant argues it served verifications for the discovery responses, rendering these motions moot. Defendant asserts Plaintiff does not claim the objections are improper or that the substantive responses are insufficient.

A party is entitled to compel responses without objections if the responding party’s untimely served discovery responses contain objections. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408 (“Sinaiko”) [“If a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, then by operation of law, all objections that it could assert to those interrogatories are waived. (§ 2030.290, subd. (a).) Unless that party obtains relief from its waiver, the propounding party is entitled to move under subdivision (b) for an order compelling the response to which the propounding party is entitled—that is, a response without objection . . . .”].)

The court finds Plaintiff sufficiently shows these motions should be granted. Plaintiff establishes she propounded Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Form Interrogatories (Set One) on August 24, 2022. (diDonato Decls. re SROGs & FROGs (collectively, “diDonato Decls.”), ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Defendant failed to serve responses by the September 27, 2022 deadline. (See diDonato Decls., ¶ 4; diDonato Decl. ISO Reply, ¶ 2.) Defendant does not dispute these facts.

            Instead, Defendant maintains these motions should be deemed moot and Defendant’s objections should be preserved because it served responses and verifications before this hearing on November 1, 2022 and January 25, 2024, respectively. However, as discussed in Sinaiko, the propounding party may seek a response without objections if the responding party served untimely responses, since all objections are waived as a matter of law. (See Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 408.) This is consistent with the plain language of the statute, which states in relevant part: “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 . . . .” (Emphasis added.) In order to sufficiently moot Plaintiff’s motions, Defendant had to serve responses without objections before the hearing. But, Defendant failed to do that. Defendant instead inserted objections, which is improper given its responses were already untimely.

            Accordingly, the court rules as follows:

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One). The court orders Defendant to serve responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), without objections, within 30 days of the date of this ruling.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One). The court orders Defendant to serve responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One), without objections, within 30 days of the date of this ruling.

            Requests for Monetary Sanctions

            Plaintiff requests $860 per motion as monetary sanctions against Defendant for these motions. Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is $400. (diDonato Decls., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff requests to recover per motion two hours and the $60 filing fee. (Id.)

            Defendant contends Plaintiff should be entitled to no monetary sanctions because Plaintiff’s counsel filed 15 other related cases and only one matter was set for trial. Defendant argues the parties agreed they would determine the priority order the cases would be prepared and that discovery in the matter set for trial would take precedent. Defendant asserts it told Plaintiff that it was working diligently to provide complete responses that were delayed due to the parties’ agreement.

            The court finds monetary sanctions are proper here. While Defendant claims it assured Plaintiff it was working diligently to provide complete responses, Defendant’s responses are not complete. Defendant’s responses improperly contain objections, which Defendant argued for in opposing these motions.

            The court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable, but the hours Plaintiff seek are unreasonable. These are basic motions that are substantially the same. Plaintiff requests two hours for preparing the motion and attending hearing. The court finds reducing Plaintiff’s recoverable time to one hour for preparing the motion and attending hearing is reasonable. The court finds Plaintiff’s request for the $60 filing fee is reasonable. Thus, Plaintiff’s total reduced recoverable amount in attorney’s fees and costs for one motion is $460 ([1 hour x $400/hour] + $60 filing fee)

            Accordingly, the court rules as follows:

            The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the reduced amount of $460 for the motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One). The court orders defendant Los Angeles Dodgers LLC to pay $460 to plaintiff Karen Osorio, through her counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the reduced amount of $460 for the motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One). The court orders defendant Los Angeles Dodgers LLC to pay $460 to plaintiff Karen Osorio, through her counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.

Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

Merits of the Motion

Plaintiff Karen Osorio moves compel responses from defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One). Plaintiff contends Defendant served untimely responses, thereby waiving objections. Plaintiff argues Defendant’s responses do not moot this motion because they contain objections that were untimely served.

Defendant contends it served “hybrid” responses with both objections and substantive responses on November 1, 2022, which are sufficient to preserve objections. Defendant argues it served verifications for the discovery responses, rendering this motion moot. Defendant asserts Plaintiff does not claim the objections are improper or that the substantive responses are insufficient.

A party is entitled to compel responses without objections if the responding party’s untimely served discovery responses contain objections. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408 (“Sinaiko”) [“If a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, then by operation of law, all objections that it could assert to those interrogatories are waived. (§ 2030.290, subd. (a).) Unless that party obtains relief from its waiver, the propounding party is entitled to move under subdivision (b) for an order compelling the response to which the propounding party is entitled—that is, a response without objection . . . .”].)

The court finds Plaintiff sufficiently shows this motion should be granted. Plaintiff establishes she propounded Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) on August 24, 2022. (diDonato Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Defendant failed to serve responses by the September 27, 2022 deadline. (See diDonato Decl., ¶ 3; diDonato Decl. ISO Reply, ¶ 2.) Defendant does not dispute these facts.

            Instead, Defendant maintains this motion should be deemed moot and Defendant’s objections should be preserved because it served responses and verifications before this hearing on November 1, 2022 and January 25, 2024, respectively. However, as discussed in Sinaiko, the propounding party may seek a response without objections if the responding party served untimely responses, since all objections are waived as a matter of law. (See Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 408.) This is consistent with the plain language of the statute, which states in relevant part: “The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand . . . .” (CCP § 2031.300(a), emphasis added.) Thus, to sufficiently moot Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant had to serve responses without objections before the hearing. But, Defendant failed to do that. Defendant instead inserted objections, which is improper given its responses were already untimely.

The court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One). The court orders Defendant to serve responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), without objections, within 30 days of the date of this ruling.

            Request for Monetary Sanctions

            Plaintiff requests $860 in attorney’s fees and costs as monetary sanctions against Defendant for this motion. Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is $400. (diDonato Decls., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff requests to recover two hours and the $60 filing fee. (Id.)

            Defendant contends Plaintiff should be entitled to no monetary sanctions because Plaintiff’s counsel filed 15 other related cases and only one matter was set for trial. Defendant argues the parties agreed they would determine the priority order the cases would be prepared and that discovery in the matter set for trial would take precedent. Defendant asserts it told Plaintiff that it was working diligently to provide complete responses that were delayed due to the parties’ agreement.

            The court finds monetary sanctions are proper here. While Defendant claims it assured Plaintiff it was working diligently to provide complete responses, Defendant’s responses are not complete. Defendant’s responses improperly contain objections, which Defendant argued for in opposing this motion.

            The court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable, but the hours Plaintiff seek are unreasonable. This is a basic motion that is substantially the same as Plaintiff’s other concurrently-filed discovery motions. Plaintiff requests two hours for preparing the motion and attending hearing. The court finds reducing Plaintiff’s recoverable time to one hour for preparing the motion and attending hearing is reasonable. The court finds Plaintiff’s request for the $60 filing fee is reasonable. Thus, Plaintiff’s total reduced recoverable amount in attorney’s fees and costs for this motion is $460 ([1 hour x $400/hour] + $60 filing fee)

            The court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the reduced amount of $460 for the motion to compel responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One). The court orders defendant Los Angeles Dodgers LLC to pay $460 to plaintiff Karen Osorio, through her counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.

            Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission (Set One)

            Plaintiff moves to deem admitted the matters in Requests for Admission (Set One) to Defendant. Here, the parties make the same arguments as those discussed for the motion above.

            Under CCP § 2033.280(c), “[t]he court shall make [an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed 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.” (Emphasis added.)

            CCP § 2033.220 states:

(a)   Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b)   Each answer shall:

(1)   Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.

(2)   Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.

(3)   Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.

(c)   If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.

Defendant served responses and a verification before this hearing on November 1, 2022 and January 25, 2024, respectively. (See Jackson Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Exhs. A-B.) The court finds Defendant’s responses substantially comply with CCP § 2033.220. None of Defendant’s responses contain objections. (See id. at ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Defendant provided a straightforward admit/deny response for all but four of the 28 requests for admission. For the four responses that do not consist of a straightforward admit/deny answer, Defendant provided a qualified admit/deny response, which is allowed under the statute. Thus, the court finds Defendant’s responses to Requests for Admission (Set One) are sufficient to moot this motion.

The court therefore finds Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted Requests for Admission (Set One) is MOOT.

Request for Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff requests $860 in attorney’s fees and costs as monetary sanctions against Defendant for this motion. Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is $400. (diDonato Decls., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff requests to recover two hours and the $60 filing fee. (Id.) Here, the parties make the same arguments as those discussed for the request for monetary sanctions for the motion above.

            CCP § 2033.280(c) states in relevant part: “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.”

            Thus, the statute makes imposing monetary sanctions mandatory for this motion and does not allow the court discretion to consider any substantial justification. Even though Plaintiff’s motion is moot, Defendant still served untimely responses so the proper procedure is to impose mandatory sanctions. For the same reasons discussed for the motion above, the court finds Plaintiff should recover a reduced amount in attorney’s fees and costs of $460 ([1 hour x $400/hour] + $60 filing fee) for this motion.

The court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the reduced amount of $460 for the motion to deem admitted Requests for Admission (Set One). The court orders defendant Los Angeles Dodgers LLC to pay $460 to plaintiff Karen Osorio, through her counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.

It is so ordered.

Dated: May 17, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court