Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCV42187, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42187    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

Background

On November 16, 2021, Defendant Pacific Specialty Insurance Company (“Defendant”) filed the instant motions to compel responses from Plaintiff Jacob Tito (“Plaintiff”) to (1) Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), and (2) Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”).  Defendant also moves for the Court to deem requests for admissions (“RFA”) admitted. Finally, Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $3,217.50.  No opposition has been filed.

On July 11, 2022, Defendant served the discovery requests on Plaintiff.  (Torres Decl. ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff’s responses were due by August 12, 2022.  (Ibid.)  On August 15, 2022, Defendant’s Counsel emailed Plaintiff’s Counsel to inquire as to the status of the overdue responses.  (Id. ¶ 4.)  Plaintiff’s Counsel informed Defendant’s Counsel that the delay was due to illness and vacation, so Defendant’s Counsel granted Plaintiff a thirty-day extension such that responses were due by September 23, 2022.  (Ibid.)  On October 18, 2022, after Plaintiff failed to respond, Defendant’s Counsel again emailed Plaintiff’s Counsel to inquire as to the overdue responses.  (Id. ¶ 5.)  Plaintiff’s Counsel again requested an extension, which Defendant granted.  (Ibid.)  Again, Plaintiff failed to respond by that deadline.  (Ibid.)

After Plaintiff again failed to respond, Defendant’s Counsel informed Plaintiff’s Counsel that Defendant would be forced to file the instant motions; Plaintiff’s Counsel failed to respond to that email.  (Ibid.)  Having received no response, Defendant filed the instant motions on December 15, 2022.  (Id. ¶ 6.)  As of filing, Plaintiff has not responded to any of the outstanding discovery requests.  (Ibid.)  Additionally, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the instant motions.

Motions to Compel

Defendant’s motion to compel responses to the SROG and RPD is granted pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.270(a) and 2031.270(a), respectively.  Plaintiff Jacob Tito is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, without objections, within fifteen (15) days of notice of this order. 

Requests for Admission

            Defendant moves under CCP §2033.280 to deem the request for admissions admitted. Where there has been no timely response to a request for admissions under CCP § 2033.010, the propounding 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.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The party who has failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants that party relief from the waiver, upon a showing (1) that the party has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)  The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “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 of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Here, Plaintiff has not filed a proposed response to the requests for admission in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220 or an opposition explaining his failure to do so.  Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for an order deeming the RFA admitted is granted pursuant to CCP §2033.280. 

Plaintiff Jacob Tito is deemed to have admitted the truth of all matters specified in the RFA as of this date.

Sanctions

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff.  The Court finds Defendant’s failure to respond a misuse of the discovery process.  Sanctions have been sufficiently noticed against Defendant and Counsel.  Defendant’s Counsel seeks $3,037.50 in attorney’s fees and costs related to the filing of the instant motions.  This number represents two hours of attorney time to draft each motion, 1.5 hours reviewing and responding to any opposition filed, and one hour to appear at the hearing on the instant matters, billed at $225.00 per hour.  (Torres Decl. ¶ 8.)  The Court finds that two hours billed at $225.00 per hour for each motion is reasonable.  Additionally, the Court finds that one hour billed at $225.00 per hour is reasonable for Defendant’s Counsel’s appearance at the joint hearing on the instant motions.  However, as no oppositions have been filed, the Court deducts 4.5 hours of attorney time for Defendant’s anticipated time spent reviewing and responding to any opposition. 

Additionally, Defendant seeks $60 per motion to compensate Defendant for the filing fees for all three motions. The Court finds this amount reasonable.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Request for Sanctions as to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel, Sassoon Sales, is granted in the amount of $1,755.00.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Pacific Specialty Insurance Company’s motion to compel responses to the SROG and RPD is granted pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.270(a) and 2031.270(a).  Plaintiff Jacob Tito is ordered to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s SROG and RPD, without objections, within fifteen (15) days of notice of this order. 

Defendant’s motion for an order deeming the RFA admitted is granted pursuant to CCP §2033.280.  Plaintiff Jacob Tito is deemed to have admitted the truth of all matters specified in the RFA as of this date.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted as modified.  Plaintiff Jacob Tito and Counsel are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,755.00 to Defendant by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

The moving party is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: April 3, 2023                                               ___________________________

                                                                                          Hon. John P. Doyle

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court