Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01225, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22TRCV01225 Hearing Date: November 16, 2023 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling¿¿
¿¿¿
HEARING DATE: November 16, 2023¿
¿¿¿
CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV01225
¿¿¿
CASE NAME: Susy I. Nava
Sanchez; Jecscia Hohara Polanco v. Deja Tynaea Mintz, et al.
¿¿¿
MOVING PARTY: (1)
Plaintiff, Susy I. Nava Sanchez; and
(2) Plaintiff, Jessica Hohara Polanco
¿¿¿
RESPONDING PARTY: (1)
Defendant, Deja Tynaea Mintz (No Opposition)
(2)
Defendant, Deja Tynaea Mintz (No Opposition)
¿¿¿
TRIAL DATE: March 11, 2024
¿¿¿
MOTION:¿ (1) Plaintiff, Susy I. Nava Sanchez’s
Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Special
Interrogatories, Demands for Production of Documents, Requests for Admission,
and Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted
(2)
Plaintiff, Jessica Hohara
Polanco’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Form Interrogatories,
Special Interrogatories, Demands for Production of Documents, Requests for
Admission, and Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted
(3)
Requests for Sanctions
¿
Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED. Verified
responses to the form and special interrogatories and the document demands are
now due per this Discovery Order on or before December 22, 2023.
(2)
GRANTED. Verified responses to the form and special interrogatories
and the document demands are now due per this Discovery Order on or before
December 22, 2023.
(3)
Requests for Sanctions are denied without prejudice to being re-raised in the
event of a later discovery or sanctions motion
¿¿
I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿
¿¿¿
A. Factual¿¿¿
On
November 14, 2022, Plaintiff, Susy I. Nava Sanchez and Jessica Hohara Polanco
filed a Complaint against Defendant Deja Tynaea Mintz. The Complaint alleges
causes of action for Motor Vehicle Negligence.
On
April 5, 2023, Plaintiffs both note their counsel propounded Special
Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for
Admissions, Set One, and Demand for Production, Set One upon Defendant Deja
Tynaea Mintz on behalf of Plaintiff, Jacscia Hohara Polanco. On May 9, 2023,
Plaintiffs note Defendant requested an extension of time to serve responses up
to May 16, 2023. Plaintiffs also note that a subsequent extension was provided
making Defendant’s due date May 30, 2023. On May 31, 2023, Plaintiffs noted
their counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding the overdue responses and
provided an additional fifteen (15) days to serve responses, without objection.
An additional request was subsequently sent by counsel for Defendant to serve
responses on June 26, 2023. Further, Plaintiffs note that at the July 27, 2023
trial setting conference, counsel for Defendant indicated to the Court an
additional sixty (60) days were requested to serve responses. However,
Plaintiffs note that those additional sixty (60) days expired on September 25,
2023 and the responses still have not been served.
Based
on the above, Plaintiffs now file these Motions to Compel.
B. Procedural¿¿¿
¿¿
On September 27, 2023, both Defendants
filed their motions to compel. To date, no opposition has been filed.
¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿
¿¿
A.
Motions to
Compel Responses
Legal
Standard
A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after
service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom
interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting
party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any
objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to
compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery
motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code
Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a
motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148
Cal.App.4th 390, 411
Further, where there has
been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010 demand, the
demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.)
Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work
product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief
from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There
is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to
respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court
before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the
inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required.
Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section
2033.290, subdivision (a), provides that “[o]n receipt of a particular response
to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an
order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of
the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or
incomplete[;] (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too
general.” Notice of the motion must be
given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise the
propounding party waives the right to compel a further response. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet
and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd.
(b).)
Discussion
Here, Plaintiffs both file motions noting that Defendant has failed
to respond to any of Plaintiff’s requests including the Set One of Form
Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Demand for Production of Documents,
and Requests for Admission. Based on this, Plaintiffs seek an order compelling
Defendant to respond to Form and Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production
of Documents. Plaintiffs also both seek
an order deeming Requests for Admission as Admitted. There is no opposition to the motions and
both motions carry the moving party’s burden of establishing entitlement to a
discovery order. Based on the moving
papers, Defendant’s counsel represented to the Court at a status conference in
the case that counsel was aware of the discovery requests pending, but still
has not served any responses to the initial, basic discovery requests despite
several extensions of time plus the additional time while these motions were
pending. The Motions are both granted,
RFAs are deemed admitted, and verified responses to the form and special
interrogatories and the document demands are now due per this Discovery Order
on or before December 22, 2023.
B. Sanctions
Plaintiffs have both requested $2,475
per motion. The basis of these requests are outlined in the declaration of
counsel for Plaintiffs, Makan “Michael” Khodabakhsh. Khodabakhsh contends that his
hourly billing rate is $495 an hour, he spent two (2) hours attempting to meet
and confer, drafting and preparing each notice of motion, anticipates spending
another two (2) hours analyzing Defendant’s Opposition to this Motion and
authoring a reply to Defendant’s opposition to this Motion. The Court notes
that there was no opposition filed and thus those hours will not be accounted
for. Also, both motions are virtually the same. Given the drastic nature of
deemed admissions, the Court will defer granting monetary sanctions at this
time but without prejudice to monetary sanctions being raised anew if and when
a motion for terminating or other sanctions is brought should defendant violate
the Court’s Discovery Order.
¿¿¿¿
The moving party is ordered to
give notice, both to defense counsel of record AND to the address at which the
Summons and Complaint were served on defendant in this case.¿¿¿¿¿