Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV26447, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26447    Hearing Date: January 29, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Aquirecorp’s Norwalk Auto Auction, LLC

Resp. Party:    None

SUBJECT:        Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Requests for Admissions [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Aquirecorp’s Norwalk Auto Auction, LLC

Resp. Party:    None

The Discovery motions are DENIED as MOOT.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Requests for Monetary Sanctions are DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

        On August 16, 2022, Plaintiff Felix Fernando Campos, in propria persona, filed a Complaint against Defendant Aquirecorp’s Norwalk Auto Auction, LLC on causes of action arising from alleged ownership and possession of a vehicle.

        On December 19, 2022, the Court found related cases 22STCV26447 and 22STCP03235, and designated case 22STCV26447 as the lead case.

        On February 10, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Aquirecorp’s Norwalk Auto Auction filed: (1) Answer to the Complaint; and (2) Cross-Complaint against Westlake Services, LLC.

        On June 5, 2023, Cross-Defendant Westlake Services, LLC filed its Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

        On December 29, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant filed: (1) Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions (“FROGs and RPDs Motion”); and (2) Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Requests for Admissions [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions (“RFAs Motion”). Defendant/Cross-Complainant concurrently filed a Proposed Order for each of the motions.

        On January 23, 2024, Defendant/Cross-Complainant filed Notice of Non-Filing of Opposition for each of the motions.

        No oppositions or other responses have been filed to the motions.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

A.          Legal Standard for Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special 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. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel motions for interrogatories or requests for production, unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

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 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. 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

Defendant/Cross-Complainant moves the Court to compel Plaintiff to serve responses to form interrogatories (“FROGs”) and requests for production of documents (“RPDs”). (FROGs and RPDs Motion, p. 5:2–4.)

        Defendant/Cross-Complainant also moves the Court to deem the requests in the requests for admission (“RFAs”) admitted and the facts stated therein conclusively established for all purposes in this action. (RFAs Motion, p. 5:2–4.)

        Until the hearing, there is no evidence before the Court that would indicate Plaintiff responded to these discovery requests. Rather, counsel for Defendant/Cross-Complainant declares that Plaintiff has not responded to these discovery requests. (FROGs and RPDs Motion, Decl. Brophy, ¶¶ 4, 6; RFAs Motion, Decl. Brophy, ¶¶ 4, 6.)

        However, at oral argument, Defense counsel stated that Plaintiff Campos served his responses to discovery one court day ago, on January 26, 2024.

        Therefore, the Court denies these motions as MOOT.

B.      Sanctions

Defendant/Cross-Complainant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. But given that Plaintiff is litigating this matter in propria persona, monetary sanctions would not be appropriate here.

The Court DENIES Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Requests for Monetary Sanctions.

III.     Conclusion

The discovery motion are DENIED as MOOT.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Requests for Monetary Sanctions are DENIED.