Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV12687, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV12687    Hearing Date: August 18, 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 Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC moves to compel responses from plaintiff Yessica Vasquez to: (1) Request for Identification and 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.

Defendant has also filed a declaration of counsel for Defendant, requesting the Court to vacate the current trial date.  To the extent Defendant seeks to alter the date presently set for trial, Defendant must do so by stipulation or noticed motion.  (See Seventh Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts effective May 16, 2022 (Revised 05/04/2022), § 7.)

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, Defendant served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff on November 18, 2021, electronically.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by December 18, 2021.  As of the filing date of the motions, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the RPD, FROG, SROG and RFA.

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Law Offices of Eduardo M. Guzman, in the amount of $1,165, which represents five hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $185 per hour, plus the filing fees at $60 per motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

The Court also grants Defendant’s motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the RFA per Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, and orders such matters admitted.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Law Offices of Eduardo M. Guzman, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,165 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.