Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 22STCV09402 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV09402, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

SUBJECT: Defendant Guadalupe Guzman’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents Served Upon the Custodian of Records of Plaintiff’s Training Facility as Follows: Los Alamitos Racetrack; Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff in the Amount of $3,661.65

Defendant Guadalupe Guzman’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents Served Upon the Custodian of Records of Plaintiff’s Training Facility as Follows: Los Alamitos Racetrack is GRANTED as to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 6 and 7.

Defendant Guadalupe Guzman’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents Served Upon the Custodian of Records of Plaintiff’s Training Facility as Follows: Los Alamitos Racetrack is GRANTED.

Guzman’s counsel chose to schedule his Motion to Compel for September 13, 2022, and his Motion to Deem Admitted for September 14, 2022. Neither motion has been opposed. For judicial economy, the Court will hear both motions today.

On March 17, 2022, Plaintiff Francisco Flores filed a complaint against Defendant Guadalupe Guzman. On June 27, 2022, the Court sustained with leave to amend Guzman’s demurrer.

On July 7, 2022, Plaintiff Francisco Flores filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendant Guadalupe Guzman alleging the following causes of action:

On August 10, 2022, Guzman moved the Court “for an order compelling the production of the documents from Los Alamitos Racetrack, and for monetary sanctions in the sum of $3,661.65 as against the Plaintiff, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320(b).” (MTC (PD), p. 1:23-26.) No opposition have been filed.

On August 12, 2022, Guzman moved the Court “that the truth of each matter specified in the Request for Admissions served on Plaintiff Francisco Flores on July 1, 2022, be deemed admitted and conclusively established for all purposes in this action. Plaintiff will also move the Court for an order that Plaintiff Francisco Flores pay to the moving party the sum of $3,261.65 as reasonable attorney fees incurred by defendant Guzman for these proceedings.” (MTC (RFA), p. 1:21-26.) No opposition has been filed.

On August 30, 2022, the Court overruled Guzman’s demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment in Flores’ First Amended Complaint.

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. (CCP §§ 2030.260(a), 2030.270(a), 2031.260(a), 2031.270(a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, "the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (CCP § 2030.300(b).) By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (CCP. § 2030.290(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. Superior Court (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.)

A motion to compel production of documents described in a deposition notice must be accompanied by a showing of “good cause”—i.e., declarations containing specific facts justifying inspection of the documents described in the notice. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(1).) Good cause is construed liberally; discovery justification is found where specific facts show the documents are necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 587; [8:787] Motion to Compel Answers, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 8E-15.) A lack of an alternative source for the sought information is an important "good cause" factor, but it is not essential. (Id. at 587-88.)

If a deponent fails to answer a deposition question or produce documents or things designated in the deposition notice or subpoena, the examiner may either complete the examination on other matters or adjourn the deposition. (CCP § 2025.460(e).) The party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. (CCP § 2025.480(a).) "This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040." (CCP § 2025.480(b).) A meet and confer declaration under CCP § 2016.040 “shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP § 2016.040.) Disputed questions and answers must be set forth verbatim in a separate statement (not in the motion itself) that provides the factual and legal reasons why further answers should be compelled. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a).)

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP § 2023.030(a).)

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. (CCP § 2033.250(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.” (CCP § 2033.280(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.” (CCP § 2033.280(b).)

A motion to deem admitted requests for admissions lies based upon a showing of failure to respond timely. (CCP §2033.280(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. (CCP §2033.280(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.” (CCP § 2033.280(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.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

On June 27, 2022, Guzman served her Notice to Consumer or Employee and Objection Subpoena to Los Alamitos Racetrack. (Diaz Decl. (MTC), ¶¶ 2, 3, Exs. A-C.) Guzman received Flores’s objection to the Subpoena issued to Los Alamitos Racetrack on July 11, 2022, though the proof of service states that service by mail occurred on July 4, 2022 and the envelope containing the objections states that the objections were mailed on July 6, 2022. (Diaz Decl. (MTC), ¶ 4, Exs. D, E.)

“1. Any and all documents concerning or related to “trainer” Francisco Flores;

2. All records, including, but not limited to, insurance documents, training logs, complaints filed and any decisions by the board related or concerning to Mr. Francisco Flores;

6. The training log or workout tab for Flying Winchester, Made in the USA and Lucky Lupe from July, 2020 through April, 2021.

7. All training logs, workout tabs or any other evidence of actual tract [sic] training for Made in the USA, Flying Winchester and Lucky Lupe by Mr. Flores.” (MTC, p. 4:12-23.)

RPD, Set One
1		DENY
2		DENY
3		DENY
4		DENY
5		DENY
6	GRANT
7	GRANT

On July 1, 2022, Guzman served Flores his Request for Admissions by mail at two different addresses. (Diaz Decl. (RFA), ¶¶ 2, 3, Ex. A.) Service occurred on both addresses on July 2, 2022. (Diaz Decl. (RFA), ¶ 5, Exs. C, D.) As of August 12, 2022, Guzman has not received responses to his Request for Admissions. (Diaz Decl. (RFA), ¶ 6.)

The Court finds that thirty days following service of Guzman’s Request for Admissions occurred on August 1, 2022. The Court finds no responses in substantial compliance with Guzman’s Request for Admissions from Flores. Thus, Guzman’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted must be granted.

The Court declines to impose monetary sanctions on Flores for his objections to Guzman’s Subpoena to Los Alamitos Racetrack.

Guzman’s counsel’s billing rate is $400.00 per hour. He states that he spent three hours to prepare the Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted, the filing fee was $61.65. (Diaz Decl. (RFA), ¶ 7.)

However, the Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted is a boiler-plate motion that is only two pages long. It is accompanied by a 7-paragraph declaration that simply repeats basic facts. Further, Guzman’s counsel is requesting 3 hours in “travel and hearing time” for each motion. The Court notes that Guzman chose to set one motion for September 13^th and the other motion for September 14^th. However, since the Court does not limit the number of motions that can be heard on any given day, there was no reason that both motions could not have been heard on the same day. Since both motions could be heard simultaneously, this is a requests for duplicative sanctions; because counsel can appear remotely, this is also a request for unneeded sanctions.

“If . . . the Court were required to award a reasonable fee when an outrageously unreasonable one has been asked for, claimants would be encouraged to make unreasonable demands, knowing that the only unfavorable consequence of such misconduct would be reduction of their fee to what they should have asked in the first place. To discourage such greed, a severer reaction is needful . . . .” (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635.) “A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether.” (Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal.4th 970, 990; Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1137.)

Defendant Guadalupe Guzman’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents Served Upon the Custodian of Records of Plaintiff’s Training Facility as Follows: Los Alamitos Racetrack is GRANTED.