Judge Mel Red Recana, Case Number: 22STCV23905, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Name of Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories from Defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, (Set 1) and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Name of Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories from Defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, (Set 1) and Request for Monetary Sanctions

The Court considered the moving papers, opposition papers, and reply papers. After review, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories from Defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, (Set 1) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories from Defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, (Set 1) are both GRANTED. Additionally, the request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. The Court will award Plaintiff monetary sanctions, and impose them on Defendant, in the total amount of $920.00, payable within 30 days.

This action stems from an alleged assault and battery suffered by Daniel Ultreras (Plaintiff) while attending a sporting event. Plaintiff filed an initial Complaint on July 25, 2022, followed by a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on February 2, 2024. In the operative FAC, Plaintiff alleges that on July 19, 2022 while attending the All-Star baseball game at Dodger stadium, that he was assaulted and battered by “Dodger non-sworn, and off-duty sworn security employees dressed in dark polo shirts.” (FAC, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff files suit against the Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC (Defendant) and several other defendants, the FAC contains eight causes of action:

Now, there are two motions before the Court: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories from Defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, (Set 1) and Request for Monetary Sanctions, and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories from Defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, (Set 1) and Request for Monetary Sanctions (collectively, Motions). Defendant opposes both Motions. No replies were filed.

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.” (CCP § 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.)

Plaintiff has shown that, pursuant to CCP § 2030.290, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2), Defendant did not provide timely responses, therefore, objections are waived, and sanctions are warranted. The Motions are granted.

Here, Plaintiff provides the Declaration of Peter R. diDonato, Plaintiff’s counsel (diDonato Decl.) which states that both Form Interrogatories (Set 1) and Special Interrogatories (Set 1) were propounded on Defendant on September 27, 2022. (diDonato Decl., ¶ 2.) Pursuant to CCP § 20230.260, Defendant had 30 days after service of interrogatories to respond. This deadline would have been October 27, 2022. Defendant did not respond until November 2, 2022. (Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses, 2:13.) Therefore, the responses were tardy.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not claim that any of Defendant’s responses were untimely. On the contrary, that is exactly what Plaintiff contends in their moving papers (see Motions 3:5-6. Also see diDonato Decl., ¶ 4.)

Defendant additionally argues that the responses on November 2, 2022 to both discovery requests were “hybrid” responses consisting of both objections and substantive responses. However, per CCP § 2030.290, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2), because the responses were untimely, objections are waived, and thus improper here.

The Court may, upon motion, relieve the offending party from this waiver if: (1) the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance and (2) the party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (CCP § 2030.290(a)(1) - CCP § 2030.290(a)(2).) However, no such motion has been made, and Defendant provides no argument that their tardy responses were the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Defendants final contention is that because responses have already been provided, the Motions are moot. Even if discovery responses have been served, the Court can still award sanctions. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407.) Plaintiff’s counsel provides the following calculations:

· Counsel anticipates that the preparation time to draft one Motion and to attend the hearing for both Motions will be 2 hours

Considering the similarity between the Motions, the Court will award Plaintiff monetary sanctions, and impose them on Defendant, in the total amount of $920.00, inclusive of both Motions.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories from Defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, (Set 1) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories from Defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, (Set 1) are both GRANTED. Additionally, the request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. The Court will award Plaintiff monetary sanctions, and impose them on Defendant, in the total amount of $920.00, payable within 30 days.

Superior Court of
California

County
of Los Angeles

Name of Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses
to Production of Documents, Set 1 & 2 and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Name of Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests
for Admissions, Set 1, Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions

The
Court considered the moving papers, opposition papers, and reply papers. After
review Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set 1 & 2) is GRANTED. The Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set 1, Admitted is DENIED as moot. However, the request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. The Court will award Plaintiff monetary sanctions, and impose them on
Defendant, in the total amount of $920.00.

This action stems from an alleged assault and
battery suffered by Daniel Ultreras (Plaintiff) while attending a sporting
event. Plaintiff filed an initial Complaint on July 25, 2022, followed by a
First Amended Complaint (FAC) on February 2, 2024. In the operative FAC,
Plaintiff alleges that on July 19, 2022 while attending the All-Star baseball
game at Dodger stadium, that he was assaulted and battered by “Dodger
non-sworn, and off-duty sworn security employees dressed in dark polo shirts.”
(FAC, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff files suit against the Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC
(Defendant) and several other defendants, the FAC contains eight causes of
action:

Now, there are two
motions before the Court, the first is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses
to Production of Documents, Set 1 & 2 and the second is Plaintiff’s Motion
to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set 1, Admitted and Request for Monetary
Sanctions. Defendant files opposition to both, no replies were filed.

“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.” (CCP § 2031.300)

“The court may impose a
monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery
process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable
expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”
(CCP § 2023.030(a).) “Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not
limited to, the following: (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized
method of discovery.” (CCP § 2023.010)

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. (CCP §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)].)

“[A] motion to have admission
requests deemed admitted may not be granted where the record establishes ...
that (1) proposed responses to the requests have been served prior to the
hearing on the motion and (2) such responses are in substantial compliance…” (Tobin
v. Oris (1992) 3 Cal. App. 4th 814, 828, overruled on other grounds by Wilcox
v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 973, 983 n.12.) Courts evaluate tardy
responses to requests for admissions, in toto, to determine whether they
substantially comply with the code, and do not evaluate each individual
response. (St. Mary v. Sup. Ct. (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779-80.)

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.

Plaintiff has shown
that, with regard to the Request for the Production of Documents (Set 1 & 2),
pursuant to CCP § 2031.260, Defendant did not provide
timely responses. Similarly, with regard to the Request for Admissions, Set 1, Plaintiff
has shown that pursuant to CCP § 2033.250, Defendant did not provide timely
responses. Therefore, objections are waived, and sanctions are warranted. The
Motions are granted.

Here, Plaintiff provides the Declaration of Peter R.
diDonato, Plaintiff’s counsel (diDonato Decl.) which states that two of the
three discovery requests at issue: Request for the Production of Documents (Set
1 & 2) were propounded on Defendant on September 27, 2022 and November 2,
2022 respectively. (diDonato Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.) Pursuant to CCP
§ 2031.260, Defendant had 30 days to
respond. This deadline would have been October 27, 2022 and December 2, 2022 respectively.
Defendant did not respond to Request for the Production of Documents (Set 1) until
November 2, 2022, and did not respond at all to Set 2. (diDonato Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)
Therefore, the responses were tardy. Additionally, the same is true for the
Request for Admission Set 1, these were served on Defendant on September 27,
2022, and were not responded to until November 2, 2022.

Defendant argues that
Plaintiff does not claim that any of Defendant’s responses were untimely. On
the contrary, that is exactly what Plaintiff contends in their moving papers
(see Motions 3:5-6. Also see diDonato Decl., ¶ 5.)

Defendant additionally
argues that the responses on November 2, 2022 to both Requests for Production
(Set 1) and the Request for Admission Set 1 were “hybrid” responses consisting
of both objections and substantive responses. However, per CCP
§ 2031.300(a) as to the Requests for Production (Set 1 & 2) and per CCP §
2033.280(a) as to the Request for Admissions, because the responses were
untimely, objections are waived, and thus improper here.

Defendants final
contention is that because responses have already been provided, the Motions
are moot. As to the Request for Admissions, the Court may not grant the motion
as responses have been served prior to the hearing. However, even if discovery
responses have been served, the Court can still award sanctions. (Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148
Cal.App.4th 390, 407.) Plaintiff’s counsel provides the following calculations:

·
Counsel
anticipates that the preparation time to draft one Motion and to attend the
hearing for both Motions will be 2 hours

Considering the
similarity between the Motions, the Court will award Plaintiff monetary
sanctions, and impose them on Defendant, in the total amount of $920.00, inclusive of both Motions.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of
Documents (Set 1 & 2) is GRANTED. The Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions,
Set 1, Admitted is DENIED as moot. However, the request for monetary
sanctions is GRANTED. The Court will award Plaintiff monetary
sanctions, and impose them on Defendant, in the total amount of $920.00.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Case No.: 22STCV23905

Superior Court of
California

County
of Los Angeles

Case No.: 22STCV23905