Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 24STCV05799, Date: 2024-11-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV05799, Date: 2024-11-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV05799 Hearing Date: November 5, 2024 Dept: 34

1. Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Propounded on April 24, 2024 is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions are AWARDED for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the total amount of $1,060.00.

2. Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One, Admitted is GRANTED.

Background

On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Esteban Cheluca-Sanchez (“Defendant”) and Does 1-40 on a subrogation recovery cause of action arising from motor vehicle collision that occurred on November 15, 2022.

On April 8, 2024, Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On October 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed its (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; (2) Request for Production of Documents, Sets One; and, (3) Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One, Admitted. Plaintiff also filed a request for monetary sanctions. As of October 28, 2024, no oppositions or other responses have been filed to the discovery motions by Defendant.

Legal Standard

1. Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Demand Requests

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).)

2. Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted

When a party fails to serve a timely response to a request for admission, the party propounding the request for admission may move for an order to deem the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., §¿2033.280, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The court shall make this order, 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… on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Discussion

On April 24, 2024, Plaintiff propounded form interrogatories, request for production of documents, and request for admissions, sets one, on Defendant. (Motion, at p. 5; Shapiro Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s discovery responses were due by May 28, 2024 to which Plaintiff’s counsel granted several extensions until September 6, 2024 to respond. (Motion, at pp. 5-6; Shapiro Decl., ¶¶ 6-10, Exh. B.) On September 18, 2024 Plaintiff’s counsel emailed a meet and confer letter to Defendant’s counsel requesting that discovery responses be produced by September 25, 2024. (Shapiro Decl., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares that Defendant has not responded to any of the discovery requests. (Shapiro Decl., ¶ 12.)

Defendant does not oppose or otherwise respond to any of the discovery motions.

There is no evidence before the court that would indicate Defendant responded to any of these discovery requests.

The court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Sets One, propounded on April 24, 2024.

Defendant shall provide initial responses, without objections, to the Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, sets one, within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this order.

The court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted. Request for Admission, set one, is deemed admitted.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in connection with this discovery motion. (Motion, at pp. 9-11.) The court does not have evidence before it that would indicate there were timely responses, that there is substantial justification for the failure to respond, or that there are other circumstances that would make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Thus, the Court must impose monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanction in the amount of $1,060.00 composed of a $60.00 filing fee for this motion and $1,000.00 for the hours spent preparing this motion (4.00 hours at a $250.00 billing rate per hour). (Motion, at pp. 10-11; Shapiro Decl., ¶ 13.)

The court finds that the hourly rates and costs incurred are reasonable. The court AWARDS monetary sanctions for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the total amount of $1,060.00.

Conclusion

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Propounded on April 24, 2024 is GRANTED.