Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV17549, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17549    Hearing Date: December 20, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

            Plaintiff Anthony Maaske (Plaintiff) moves to compel responses from Defendant Neutron Holdings, Inc. dba Lime (Defendant) to Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG), Request for Production of Documents, set one (RPD).  Further, Plaintiff moves to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission, set one (RFA).  Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the three motions.  Defendant opposes the motions.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he 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, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)-(b).)  

Similarly, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it . . . [t]he 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 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (a)-(b).)  

            And under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom requests or admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . .  [t]he 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[.]”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)  Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, 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.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

Here, Plaintiff served the FROG, RPD and RFA on Defendant on September 23, 2021, electronically.  Defendant’s responses were thus due by October 27, 2021.  As of the filing date of the motions, Plaintiff had not received responses from Defendant.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant failed to serve timely responses to the FROG, RPD and RFA.

In opposition, Defendant advances two arguments.  First Defendant argues that the instant motions to compel are moot, as Defendant served its responses to the FROG, RPD and RFA on Plaintiff on October 21, 2022.  Second, Defendant attests Plaintiff’s motion to compel should be denied because Plaintiff served the subject discovery requests at a time during which the case was stayed pending arbitration.  (See February 18, 2021 Minute Order.)  Defendant avers that Plaintiff should have reserved discovery requests once jurisdiction was established before the arbitrator selected by the parties. 

As Defendant has established service of its discovery responses to the FROG, RPD and RFA on October 21, 2022, the Court finds Plaintiff’s motions to be moot, without proceeding to Defendant’s second argument.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in connection with the three motions.  In opposition, Defendant again raises its two previous arguments.  Defendant’s first argument that monetary sanctions are inappropriate because Defendant has served the subject discovery responses on Plaintiff, is unpersuasive as the untimeliness of the responses are still grounds for monetary sanctions.  However, Defendant’s next argument that sanctions are appropriate as Plaintiff served the subject discovery requests during a stay of the underlying action, is well taken.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.515, subdivision (h), “[u]nless otherwise specified in the order, a stay order suspends all proceedings in the action to which it applies.”  Accordingly, the Court finds the imposition of monetary sanctions against Defendant is inappropriate under the circumstances since the stay of the action on February 18, 2021, should have suspended all proceedings, including discovery.   

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to the FROG RPD, and RFA as moot.   Further, the Court denies Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions against Defendant.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.