Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV00665, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00665    Hearing Date: September 9, 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 Nargis Akmakjian moves to compel responses from defendants HP Village Partners, LLC (“HP”) and Domino Realty Management (“Domino”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents and/or Tangible Things, set one (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”).  Plaintiff also moves to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission, set one (“RFA”), which Plaintiff propounded on Defendants.  Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions.  Defendants oppose the motions.

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a single, combined motion with respect to both Defendants as to each discovery request.  Instead, Plaintiff should have filed separate motions as to each defendant and each discovery request for a total of eight motions. The Court will therefore order Plaintiff to pay an additional $420 in filing fees. (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).)  The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Here, Plaintiff served the subject discovery requests on Defendants on October 26, 2021, electronically.  Defendants’ responses were thus due by November 29, 2021.  In opposition, Defendants argue, first, that the motions are premature and procedurally improper because Plaintiff failed to schedule an informal discovery conference (“IDC”) prior to bringing the motions, and second, that the motions are now moot because Defendants have subsequently served their responses to the discovery requests. 

With respect to Defendants’ first argument, the Court notes that, as Defendants correctly cite in their motions, an IDC is required in connection with a motion to compel further discovery responses – which Plaintiff has not made here.  There is no such IDC requirement for a motion to compel initial discovery responses.  With respect to Defendants’ second argument, the Court notes that Defendants served amended responses to the subject discovery requests, without objections, on July 22, 2022.  The Court therefore finds Defendants have served untimely responses to the RPD, FROG, and SROG, and denies those motions as moot.

As to the RFA, because Defendants’ responses to the RFA contain no objections and either admit, deny, or state that Defendants, after conducting a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular requests, that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendants to admit the matter, the Court finds the responses, “in toto”, to be substantially compliant with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (c); St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779-80.)  Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the RFA as moot.

Notwithstanding, the issue of sanctions for Defendants’ failure to timely respond remains before the Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subdivision (c); see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) [“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed”].) 

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The Court finds Defendants’ failure to timely respond to the subject discovery requests 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).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against HP and Domino, each, in the amount of $990, which, taken together, represents six hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and replies, and attend the hearing at $250 per hour, plus the filing fees at $60 per motion (for a total of $480).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to the RPD, FROG, and SROG and the motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the RFA as moot.

Further, the Court orders HP and Domino, each, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $990 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Finally, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay an additional $420 in filing fees to the Clerk of the Court on or before September 30, 2022.

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