Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22SMCV02753, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02753    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

            Defendant Elite Transfer Inc. (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Ellen Mercier (“Plaintiff”) to Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”); and Request for Production, Set One (“RFP”); and to deem admitted Requests for Admission (“RFA”).  Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions incurred in connection with filing the motions. 

            Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the motions.

LEGAL STANDARDS

1.      Interrogatories

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).) 

2.      Requests for Admission

             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).)

3.      Requests for Production

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.300, subd. (a), “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (a) The 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).”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Where a party fails to respond to demands for production, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) “Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original response to it on the party making the demand . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).)

ANALYSIS

1.      Discovery Requests

Defendant served Plaintiff the first sets of the FROG, SROG, RFP and RFA on January 27, 2023.  (See Mullis Decl. ¶ 3 and Ex. A to each Motion.)   On February 28, Plaintiff’s counsel requested a 30-day extension of time to respond to the discovery requests.  (Id. at ¶ 4.)  On October 2, Plaintiff told Defendant over the phone that she does “not have time” for this matter.  (Id. ¶ 9.)  Plaintiff has not otherwise communicated about or responded to the discovery requests, and did not attend the Informal Discovery Conference on October 17, 2023.  (Id. at ¶¶ 4-8.) 

And as of the filing date of the motions, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to timely serve responses to the FROG, SROG, RFP and RFA. 

2.      Monetary Sanctions

            Defendant request monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the FROG, SROG, RFP and RFA to be abuses 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 Plaintiff in the amount of $1465.00, which represents five hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, and attend the hearing, at $245 per hour, plus the filing fees of $240 at $60 per motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel responses to the FROG, SROG and RFP per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 and 2031.100.  As such, the Court orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court grants Defendant’s 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 Plaintiff.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1465.00 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.

DATED:  January 4, 2024                                                      ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court