Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 23GDCV00428, Date: 2024-10-11 Tentative Ruling

With respect to the motions to compel responses to interrogatories and document demands, as well as to deem requests for admissions admitted, defendant has filed one motion, seeking to compel responses to three separate sets of discovery—form interrogatories, special interrogatories and requests for production of documents—from two separate defendants, A & D Properties, Inc. and Ani Grocery and Deli, Inc. The motion also seeks orders deeming requests for admissions deemed admitted as to each defendant.

The motion is accordingly eight motions lumped into one motion. The motion should have been brought as eight motions, with the proper number of reservations for motions of this nature, to avoid calendar congestion and jumping ahead of other discovery motions, and with all separate filing fees paid.

The court orders the additional filing fees of $60 to be paid for each of the additional seven motions to be considered this date, for total additional filing fees of $420.

Under CCP § 2030.290, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,” that party “waives any legal right to exercise the option to produce writings...as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...” Under subdivision (b), “The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” CCP §2031.300 contains similar provisions with respect to requests to produce documents.

Plaintiff has appropriately moved for orders to compel. Accordingly, defendants have waived the option to produce writings, as well as all objections, and will be ordered to respond.

Under CCP § 2033.280, a party who fails to serve a timely response to requests for admissions “waives any objection to the requests….” In addition, the requesting 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....” CCP § 2033.280(b). The Code specifies that “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the request for admissions that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” CCP § 2033.280(c).

In this case, requests for admissions were served on defendants on June 7, 2023. Moving party extended an extension of time to respond to August 9, 2023. Defendants did not request or obtain any further extensions to respond. Responses were not served within the time permitted, and defendants have therefore waived all objections. Plaintiff has filed a noticed motion requesting an order that the requests be deemed admitted as truth. Unless verified responses which are in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220 are served before the hearing, the court must grant the motion.

“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 admissions necessitated this motion.”

With respect to interrogatories, under CCP § 2030.290(c), “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.” A similar provision applies to document demands. See CCP § 2031.300(c).

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuse of the discovery process includes “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP § 2023.030(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....If a monetary sanction is authorized” by the statute, “ the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP § 2023.030(a).

Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990, 2nd Dist.) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.

In this case, defendants have failed to respond to authorized methods of discovery and plaintiff has submitted evidence that plaintiff has incurred expenses as a result of the conduct. Since the motions are unopposed, there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Defendant requests $2,400 for the single motion. The time spent to prepare a reply should be minimal in light of defendants’ failure to file timely opposition. The sanctions will be adjusted accordingly as follows: 4 hours total attorney time including remote appearance at $400.00 per hour for a total amount of attorneys’ fees of $1,600.00.

Plaintiff’s Motion: 1. To Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Special and Form Interrogatories, Sets One, 2. To Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions, Set One, Admitted and Conclusively Established, 3. Requesting Monetary Sanctions Against Defendants and Their Counsel:

The Motion Reservation was for one motion: a single motion to compel responses to discovery. Contrary to this reservation, plaintiff has combined eight motions into one: two motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, two motions to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, two motions to compel responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and two motions to deem the truth of matters specified in Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted.

Eight separate hearing dates should have been reserved for these eight discovery motions. In the future, plaintiff is ordered to obtain separate hearing reservations and pay separate filing fees. Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect. The Court will proceed to consider all eight motions this date, as qualified below.

Defendant A & D Properties, Inc. is ordered to serve verified responses to Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Plaintiff, Set One, without objection, and to permit inspection and copying, within ten days.

Defendant A & D Properties, Inc. has failed to serve timely responses substantially complying with the provisions of CCP § 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. The Court therefore orders that all matters specified in Request for Admissions Propounded by Plaintiff, Set One, are deemed admitted as true, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c).

Defendant Ani Grocery and Deli, Inc. is ordered to serve verified responses to Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Plaintiff, Set One, without objection, and to permit inspection and copying, within ten days.

Defendant Ani Grocery and Deli, Inc. has failed to serve timely responses substantially complying with the provisions of CCP § 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. The Court therefore orders that all matters specified in Request for Admissions Propounded by Plaintiff, Set One, are deemed admitted as true, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c).

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $1,600.00 (4.0 hours @ $400 per hour) [6 hours requested] [Amount Requested $2,400.00], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Orlando Garcia and against defendants A & D Properties Inc. and Ani Grocery and Deli, Inc., and defendants’ counsel of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2031.300 (c), 2033.280(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), and CRC Rule 3.1030(a).

The Court notes it has exercised its discretion to hear eight motions, but this order will not become effective until moving party pays an additional $60 for each of seven additional motions for a total of $420 in additional filing fees.

Counsel for moving party is ordered to submit proof of payment of the additional filing fees and to then prepare an order for sanctions and submit it on eCourt by noon on Monday October 14, 2024, in accordance with this order.

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.

If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.