Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV19781, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 21STCV19781    Hearing Date: April 26, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to: (1) Compel Initial Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories—Employment (Set 2); and (2) Request for Monetary Sanctions, against Defendant and Its Counsel, Jointly and Severally

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Eugene Garcia

Resp. Party:    Defendants Beverly Hills Unified School District and Michael Bregy

SUBJECT:         Motion to: (1) Compel Initial Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (Set 2); and (2) Request for Monetary Sanctions, against Defendant and Its Counsel, Jointly and Severally

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Eugene Garcia

Resp. Party:    Defendants Beverly Hills Unified School District and Michael Bregy

SUBJECT:         Motion to: (1) Deem Plaintiff’s Request for Admission (Set 2) Admitted, and Compel Defendant’s Initial Responses to Requests for Admission (Set 2); and (2) Request for Monetary Sanctions, against Defendant and Its Counsel, Jointly and Severally

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Eugene Garcia

Resp. Party:    Defendants Beverly Hills Unified School District and Michael Bregy

Plaintiff’s FROGs Motion, RPDs Motion, and RFAs Motion are DENIED as both moot and untimely.

Plaintiff’s Requests for Sanctions are DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On May 26, 2021, Plaintiff Eugene Garcia filed his Complaint against Defendants Beverly Hills Unified School District and Michael Bregy on causes of action that arose from Plaintiff’s employment and subsequent termination of employment with Defendants.

On September 2021, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint.

On October 7, 2021, Defendants filed their Answer to the First Amended Complaint.

On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed:

(1)       Motion to: (1) Compel Initial Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories—Employment (Set 2); and (2) Request for Monetary Sanctions, against Defendant and Its Counsel, Jointly and Severally (“FROGs Motion”);

(2)       Motion to: (1) Compel Initial Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (Set 2); and (2) Request for Monetary Sanctions, against Defendant and Its Counsel, Jointly and Severally (“RPDs Motion”); and

(3)       Motion to: (1) Deem Plaintiff’s Request for Admission (Set 2) Admitted, and Compel Defendant’s Initial Responses to Requests for Admission (Set 2); and (2) Request for Monetary Sanctions, against Defendant and Its Counsel, Jointly and Severally (“RFAs Motion).

In support of each of the motions, Plaintiff filed a proposed order.

On April 13, 2023, Defendants filed an opposition to each motion. 

On April 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply to each motion.

ANALYSIS:

        For clarity and ease of analysis, the Court concurrently considers the three motions.

I.           Legal Standard

A.          Legal Standard for Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand requests are propounded within 30 days after service of the requests, unless the time is extended by agreement of the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2030.270, subd. (a), 2031.260, subd. (a), 2031.270, subd. (a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, "the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905, 906.) Indeed, "[o]nce [a party] 'fail[ed] to serve a timely response,' the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party's] motion to compel responses." (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)

B.      Legal Standard for Requests for Admission

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom the request for admissions is directed within 30 days after service of the request for admissions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) If the party fails to serve a timely response, “the party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) The requesting party may then “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 monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  

A motion to deem admitted requests for admissions lies based upon a showing of failure to respond timely. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395 [disapproved on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983]; Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2013) ¶ 8:1370.) Requests for admissions must be deemed admitted where no responses in substantial compliance were served before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); Edmon & Karnow, supra, at ¶ 8:1375.)  

A court will deem requests admitted, “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).) “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  

II.        Discussion

A.      The Discovery Requests Propounded

On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff served on Defendants the form interrogatories (“FROGs”), requests for production of documents (“RPDs”), and requests for admission (“RFAs”) at issue. (FROGs Motion, Exh. 3, p. 9 (Proof of Service); RPDs Motion, Exh. 3, p. 8; RFAs Motion, Exh. 3, p. 7.)

On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed these motions. Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: (1) compelling Defendants to serve initial responses to the FROGs, RPDs, and RFAs; and (2) deeming as admitted the RFAs. (FROGs Motion, p. 6:14–15; RPDs Motion, p. 6:16–17; RFAs Motion, p. 8:7 -11.)

Defendants oppose the motions, arguing: and (1) that the motions are untimely; (2) that Defendants have already served verified responses to all three motions. (Opposition to FROGs Motion, p. 5:2–3, 5:15–16; Opposition to RPDs Motion, p. 5:2–3, 5:15–16; Opposition to RFAs Motion, p. 5:4–5, 5:17–18.)

In his Reply, Plaintiff argues: (1) that the motions are timely; and (2) that Defendants’ further responses are not substantially compliant. (Reply to FROGs Motion, pp. 2:25, 3:7; Reply to RPDs Motion, pp. 2:25, 3:7; Reply to RFAs Motion, pp. 2:25, 3:7.)

First, the motions are moot because responses have been served.

Second, the motions are untimely. Motions concerning discovery must be heard on or before the 15th day before the date initially set for trial, and a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not automatically operate to reopen discovery proceedings without a motion or other court ruling so ordering. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, 2024.050.) The Court last reset the discovery deadlines by Order dated August 9, 2022, which moved discovery deadlines to accord with the then-trial date of May 8, 2023. That made the deadline to hear discovery motions April 21, 2023 because 15 days before May 8, 2023 was Sunday, April 23, 2023. Although the Court postponed trial to August 7, 2023, no extension of discovery deadlines was provided. (Minute Order dated April 17, 2023.) Thus, the April 21, 2023 deadline remained. The hearings in this matter are scheduled for April 26, 2023. Thus, these motions are untimely. 

The Court DENIES as moot and untimely Plaintiff’s FROGs Motion, RPDs Motion, and RFAs Motion.

B.      Sanctions

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendants and Defendants’ Counsel for failure to timely serve verified responses to the FROGs, RPDs, and SROGs. However, no monetary sanctions can be granted, including regarding the RFAs, because the motions are untimely.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Requests for Sanctions.

III.     Conclusion

Plaintiff’s FROGs Motion, RPDs Motion, and RFAs Motion are DENIED as moot and untimely.

Plaintiff’s Requests for Sanctions are DENIED.