Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV49846, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49846    Hearing Date: March 23, 2023    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

            Plaintiffs Chastity Richkarday, William Whitehorse Hein and Claudio Roman Romas (collectively, Plaintiffs) move to compel responses from Defendant Anthony Delgado (Defendant) to Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG) and Request for Production of Documents and Tangible Things, set one (RPD).  Plaintiffs also moves to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admissions, set one (RFA).   Plaintiffs seek monetary sanctions in connection with the three motions.  Defendant has not filed oppositions to 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).)  

            Additionally, 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 Richkarday served the FROG, RPD and RFA on Defendant on May 5, 2022, electronically.  Defendant’s responses were thus due by June 8, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Plaintiff Richkarday had not received responses from Defendant.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to serve timely responses to the FROG, RPD and RFA.

Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions in connection with the three motions.  The Court finds Defendant’s failure to timely respond to the FROG, RPD and RFA 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 Plaintiffs, in the amount of $1,180 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 $180 at $60 per motion. [1]

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

Further, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to deem admitted matters specified in the RFA per Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, and deems admitted the matters specified in the RFA propounded to Defendant.

Further, the Court orders Defendant to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,060 to Plaintiffs, by and through counsel for Plaintiffs, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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