Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV21062, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV21062 Hearing Date: November 7, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing
date: November 7, 2024
Moving
Party: Plaintiff Mission Siloe
Defensores De La Fe Christiana
Responding
Party: Unopposed
Motion
to Compel Initial Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One)
The Court
considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed.
The
motion is GRANTED. Defendant Laura
Martinez is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Request
for Production of Documents (Set One) within 30 days of this order.
The request for
sanctions is also GRANTED. Defendant Martinez is ordered to pay $800.00 within
30 days of this order.
Background
On
August 30, 2023, Plaintiff Mission Siloe Defensores De La Fe Christiana
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for Forcible Detainer and Damages against
Defendants Felix Carrada (“Carrada”); Laura Martinez (“Martinez”); All Others
in Possession of 3824 Maple Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90011; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive.
On
September 21, 2023, Defendant Martinez filed an Answer.
On
January 22, 2024, the Court dismissed without prejudice All Others in
Possession of 3824 Maple Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90011.
On
October 24, 2024, the Court entered default judgment against Defendant Carrada.
On
July 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Initial Responses
to Request for Production of Documents. The motion is unopposed.
Legal
Standard
A responding
party has 30 days after service of an inspection demand to serve their
responses on the party making the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd.
(a).) However, if an inspection demand are served by electronic service, a
responding party has an additional two (2) court days to respond. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).)
If a responding
party fails to timely respond to the inspection demand, “The party to whom a
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).” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)
Furthermore, the
party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the
inspection demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) And “Unlike a
motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject
to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate
either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’ requirement.” (Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148
Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves for an order compelling
Defendant Martinez to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production
of Documents (“RFP”)(Set One).
Here, Plaintiff served its First Set
of RFPs on Defendant Martinez on April 5, 2024. (Mot. at 3:10-11, Ex. A.)
Defendant Martinez’s responses to the RFAs were due on or about May 10, 2024,
which would be 30 days after service of the discovery requests per Code
of Civil Procedure Section 2033.250, subdivision (a). On June 27, 2024,
Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendant Martinez demanding responses.
(Mot. at 3:13-14, Ex. B.) As of the date of filing of the present motion,
Defendant Martinez still had not responded to the subject discovery nor
requested any extension to provide any responses. (Id. at 3:17-21.)
Therefore,
the motion to compel initial responses to Plaintiff’ Request for Production of
Documents (Set One) is GRANTED.
Request for
Sanctions
When a request
for monetary sanctions is concurrently filed with a motion to compel responses,
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)
Additionally, “If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this
title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that one subject to
the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances
make the imposition of sanction unjust.” (Ibid.)
Here,
Plaintiff’s counsel of record Moses O. Onyejekwe seeks $2,000.00 in sanctions
against Defendant Martinez. (Onyejekwe Decl., ¶7.) However, the Court notes
that Mr. Onyejekwe included the following identical paragraph in each of his
declarations for the two discovery motions on calendar for today: “Approximately
three (hours have been expended in the research and preparation of this motion.
It will take another hour to appear and argue our motion for a total of five
hours. I have practiced law for over thirty years in the Los Angeles County
area. Based on my hourly rate of $400.00 per hour, I request the sum of
$2,000.00 in monetary sanctions from the defendant as sanctions for her willful
failure to comply with her discovery obligations.” (Id.) The Court
awarded sanctions in the amount of $1,600.00 in the motion to deem RFAs
admitted. It can be reasonably inferred that there was overlap in Mr.
Onyejekwe’s efforts such that imposing a second award of $1,600.00 would
constitute a windfall. For instance, Mr. Onyejekwe requests one hour to appear
and one hour to argue at the hearing in both declarations. Awarding four hours
for a one hour hearing would be inappropriate.
Thus, the Court
will award 2.0 hours at $400.00 per hour, for a total of $800.00.
Conclusion
Based
on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant Laura Martinez is ordered to
provide verified, objection-free responses to Request for Production of
Documents (Set One) within 30 days of this order.
The request for
sanctions is also GRANTED. Defendant Martinez is ordered to pay $800.00 within
30 days of this order.
It
is so ordered.
Dated: November 7, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court
Hearing
date: November 7, 2024
Moving
Party: Plaintiff Mission Siloe
Defensores De La Fe Christiana
Responding
Party: Unopposed
Motion
to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted
The Court
considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed.
The motion is GRANTED.
The request for
sanctions is also GRANTED. Defendant Martinez is ordered to pay $1,600.00
within 30 days of this order.
Background
On
August 30, 2023, Plaintiff Mission Siloe Defensores De La Fe Christiana
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for Forcible Detainer and Damages against
Defendants Felix Carrada (“Carrada”); Laura Martinez (“Martinez”); All Others
in Possession of 3824 Maple Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90011; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive.
On
September 21, 2023, Defendant Martinez filed an Answer.
On
January 22, 2024, the Court dismissed without prejudice All Others in
Possession of 3824 Maple Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90011.
On
October 24, 2024, the Court entered default judgment against Defendant Carrada.
On
July 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests For
Admissions Admitted. The motion is unopposed.
Legal
Standard
“Any party may
obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action
admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters
of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for
admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the
parties.”¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.010.) “Within 30 days after service of
requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve
the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the
response on all other parties who have appeared . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2033.250, subd. (a).)
If a party to
whom request for admissions are served fails to provide a timely response, the
party to whom the request was directed waives any objections, including based
on privilege or the work product doctrine. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd.
(a).) The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any
documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed
admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280,
subd. (b).) The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the
request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the
hearing on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves for an order deeming admitted
the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions
(“RFA”)(Set One) against Defendant Martinez.
Here, Plaintiff served its First Set
of RFAs on Defendant Martinez on April 5, 2024. (Mot. at 3:13-14, Ex. A.)
Defendant Martinez’s responses to the RFAs were due on or about May 10, 2024,
which would be 30 days after service of the discovery requests per Code
of Civil Procedure Section 2033.250, subdivision (a). On June 27, 2024,
Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendant Martinez demanding responses.
(Mot. at 3:17-18, Ex. B.) As of the date of filing of the present motion,
Defendant Martinez still had not responded to the subject discovery nor
requested any extension to provide any responses. (Id. at 3:23-24.) Finally,
Defendant Martinez has not opposed this motion to indicate responses have since
been provided and are in substantial compliance with the Code of Civil
Procedure.
Therefore,
the motion to deem Plaintiff’s request for admissions admitted is GRANTED.
Request for
Sanctions
Here,
Plaintiff’s counsel of record Moses O. Onyejekwe seeks $2,000.00 in sanctions
against Defendant Martinez. (Onyejekwe Decl., ¶7.) Mr. Onyejekwe attests to
expending 3.0 hours researching and preparing the instant motion and
anticipates 1.0 hour will be spent appearing for the hearing and arguing said
motion for a total of five hours at an hourly rate of $400.00. The Court
assumes Mr. Onyejekwe requests an hour for appearing at the hearing and an hour
for arguing the motion, which would equal to 2.0 hours. However, two hours for
attending the hearing on the motion and arguing the motion is unreasonable. The
motion is not complex in nature and is unopposed.
Thus,
the Court will award 4.0 hours at $400 per hour for a total of $1,600.00.
Conclusion
Based
on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED.
The request for
sanctions is also GRANTED. Defendant Martinez is ordered to pay $1,600.00
within 30 days of this order.
It
is so ordered.
Dated: November 7, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court