Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV01125, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV01125    Hearing Date: August 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

            Defendant Anthony James Mancilla moves to compel responses from plaintiff Reyna Yoplac to: (1) Demand for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”);  and (3) Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”).  Defendant also moves to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission, set one, (“RFA”) which Defendant propounded on Plaintiff.  Defendant seeks monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the motions.

ANALYSIS

1. MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES

    

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).)  

Here, Defendant served the RPD, FROG and SROG on Plaintiff on February 24, 2021, electronically.  Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant. Self-represented parties must affirmatively consent to electronic service by serving and filing a notice so stating. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251, subd. (c)(3)(B).) Absent such affirmative consent, self-represented parties must be served with documents by nonelectronic means. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6, subd. (d)(4), 1011, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.253, subds. (b)(2), (3).)

The Court finds Plaintiff has not filed and served a notice affirmatively consenting to electronic service. Consequently, the Court finds Defendant’s service of the RPD, FROG and SROG on Plaintiff on February 24, 2021, to have been procedurally defective and invalid.  The Court therefore denies the motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the RPD, FROG, and SROG. 

1. MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED

    

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 of 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 of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

            Here, Defendant served the RFA on Plaintiff on February 9, 2022, electronically and by mail.  Plaintiff’s response was thus due by March 16, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motion, Defendant has not received a response from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to serve a timely response to the RFA.  

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the RFA to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d); 2030.290, subd. (c); and 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $310, which represents 2 hours of attorney time to prepare the motion attend the hearing at $125 per hour, plus the filing fee of $60. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the RPD, FROG and SROG without prejudice. 

The Court grants Defendant’s motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the RFA per Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, and orders said matters deemed admitted.  Further, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $310 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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