Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV48101, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48101    Hearing Date: October 28, 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 Faranak Rafat (Plaintiff) moves to compel responses from Defendant C&H Service Air Condition & Heating, Inc. to Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG) and Inspection Demands, set one (RPD), and moves to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission, set one (RFA).

            Plaintiff additionally moves to compel responses from Defendant Joseph Elyashev to Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG), Demand for Inspections, set one (RPD), and moves to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission, set one (RFA).

            Further, Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the three motions.  Defendants C&H Service Air Condition & Heating, Inc. and Joseph Elyashev (collectively, Defendants) have not filed oppositions to the motions.

Preliminarily, the Court finds that Defendant filed three motions to compel Defendants’  responses to the FROGs, RPDs and to deem the matters in the RFAs admitted.  Instead, Plaintiff should have filed one motion as to each discovery request served on each Defendant for a total of six motions.  The Court will therefore order Plaintiff to pay an additional $180 in filing fees to the Clerk of the Court.  (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (a).)       

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).) 

            Pursuant to 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 FROGs, RPDs, and RFAs on Defendants on February 8, 2021, electronically.  Defendants’ responses were thus due by March 12, 2021.  As of the filing date of the motions, Plaintiff has not received responses from Defendants.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to serve timely responses to the FROGs, RPDs and RFAs.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in connection with the three motions.  The Court finds Defendants’ failure to timely respond to the FROGs, RPDs, and RFAs to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Defendants and Defendants’ counsel of record, Bryan Zaverl of Mark R. Weiner & Associates, in the amount of $1,364.95, which represents four hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, and attend the hearing, at $250 per hour, plus the filing fees of $364.95 [$61.65 per motion filed with the Court and $180 in the additional fees ordered paid to the Clerk of the Court as noted above].

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to the FROGs and RPDs per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.  As such, the Court orders Defendants to serve verified responses to the FROGs and RPDs, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in the RFAs per Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, and deems admitted the matters specified in the RFAs propounded to Defendants. 

Further, the Court orders Defendants and Defendants’ counsel of record, Bryan Zaverl of Mark R. Weiner & Associates, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,364.95 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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