Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV01318, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23TRCV01318 Hearing Date: September 18, 2024 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling¿¿
¿¿¿
HEARING DATE: September 18, 2024¿
¿¿¿
CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV01318
¿¿¿
CASE NAME: Jiro Koyanagi v. City of Redondo Beach,
et al.
¿¿¿
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff,
Jiro Koyanagi
¿¿¿
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, City of Redondo Beach
¿¿¿
TRIAL DATE: Not Set.
¿¿¿
MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel City of Redondo Beach to respond to Form
Interrogatories, Set One
(2) Motion to Compel City
of Redondo Beach to respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One
(3) Motion to Compel City of Redondo Beach to respond to Requests
for Production of Documents, Set One
(4) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted
(5) Request for Sanctions
Tentative Rulings: (1), (2), (3) GRANTED. Verified substantive responses without objections
due October 11, 2024.
(4) City is ordered to admit or deny RFAs without objections by the
same date
(5) Requests for Sanctions is to be discussed with the Court
during oral argument, and will likely be deferred until hearing on City’s
motion to seek waiver from objections.
I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿
¿¿¿
A. Factual¿¿¿
¿¿¿
On April 26, 2023, Plaintiff, Jiro Koyanagi
(“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, City of Redondo Beach,
County of Los Angeles, State of California, Jeremy C. Casner, Joshua R. Casner,
and DOES 1 through 50. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1)
Negligence; (2) Premises Liability; and (3) Dangerous Condition of Public
Property.
Plaintiff’s moving papers assert that on November 16,
2023, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories,
Set One, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Requests for
Admission, Set One on Defendant, City of Redondo Beach (“City”). Plaintiff
contends that City’s responses were due on December 19, 2023.
On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff notes that Defense
counsel requested a three-week extension to provide responses, making the new
responses due January 9, 2024, which was granted. On January 9, 2024, Defense
counsel requested another three-week extension to provide responses, making the
new responses due January 30, 2024, which was granted.
On June 10, 2024, Plaintiff notes that Defense counsel
requested an additional ten (10) days to provide responses after the responses
were now an additional five (5) months overdue. Plaintiff’s counsel notes that
this extension was granted, but requested there be no objections, to which
defense counsel agreed. The responses were subsequently due on July 5, 2024. On
July 5, 2024, Plaintiff notes that Defense counsel requested a two-week
extension to provide responses, which was granted. Subsequently, responses were
due on July 19, 2024. On July 19, 2024, Defense counsel requested an additional
30-day extension to provide responses. Plaintiff’s counsel notes that an
extension was granted to July 26, 2024 and indicated it would be a final
extension.
Plaintiff notes that mediation had been mutually
agreed upon for August 6, 2024 by all parties and Plaintiff’s counsel notes
that responses were needed a sufficient time before then to fully prepare the
case for mediation. Plaintiff contends that City, however, informed Plaintiff’s
counsel and Defendant Casners on August 5, 2024 that they would not be
attending mediation on August 6, 2024.
On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff notes that Defense counsel
served discovery responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special
Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set One., and
Request for Admissions, Set One. However, Plaintiff asserts that these
responses only consisted of boilerplate objections.
B. Procedural¿¿¿
¿¿
On August 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed these
Motions to Compel and Requests to Deem Request for Admission Admitted. On September
5, 2024, City filed corresponding opposition briefs. On September 11, 2024,
Plaintiff filed a reply brief.
¿II.
ANALYSIS¿¿
A. Motion to Compel Further Interrogatories and
Requests for Production of Documents
i.
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 (“Sinaiko”).)
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.
ii.
Discussion
Here, Plaintiff has requested this Court order
Defendant City’s verified, code-compliant responses without objection to Form
Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of
Documents, Set One. Defendant City does not disagree that it failed to timely
respond to Plaintiff’s propounded discovery. In fact, City’s opposition papers
note that as a practical matter, responding Defendant’s last and final
extension to respond to Plaintiff’s written discovery was on July 26, 2024, and
thus, in order to preserve its objections, City had no choice but to send
objection only responded on the due date. City also notes that the unexpected
death of Counsel, Keaton E. Moore, who was previously the lead counsel on this
matter, warrants a continuance. City notes that prior to his death on August
11, 2024, Moore was drafting further responses to Plaintiff’s written discovery
but was unable to complete the responses.
The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a Motion to
Compel INITIAL responses, not FURTHER responses. “If a part to whom
interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following
rules apply: (a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any
right to exercise the option to produce writings under section 2030.230, as
well as any objections to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege
or on the protection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) However,
this Court notes that Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290,
subdivision (a), “[t]he court, on motion, may relieve that party from this
waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are
satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in
substantial compliance with section 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240;
[and] (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of
mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290,
subd. (a)(1), (2).) Despite this, a Defendant’s untimely response in a civil
action does not divest a trial court of authority to compel responses, rather
than being restricted to compelling “further” responses; and under the Civil
Discovery Act, the Court has discretion to rule on motion to compel initial
responses to ensure that the propounding party receives the responses they are
entitled to. (Sinaiko, supra, 148
Cal.App.4th at 390.)
While
the Court may have found that code-compliant, verified responses that were in
substantial compliance would have rendered each of these motions moot, the City
has had over 6 months to gather information and provide at least some semblance
of substantive responses, all long before the handling attorney passed away.
The Court is sympathetic towards the unexpected passing of City’s counsel,
Kenton E. Moore, and understands that he was preparing further responses prior
to his death. However, a month or more has elapsed since Mr. Moore’s passing,
and still not substantive responses have been provided that might moot these discovery
motions. The Court will GRANT the motions
to compel initial, SUBSTANTIVE verified responses without objections to the FROGs,
SROGS, and RFPs as distinct from objections-only responses, ORDERS City to
provide admission or denials without objections to the RFAs, and gives the City
until October 11, 2024 to srve the same on Plaintiff’s counsel.
Because
City’s opposition suggests its plan to file a Motion for Relief from Waiver to
objections, the Court will consider that motion if and when it is filed.
iii.
Sanctions
Plaintiff has also requested monetary sanctions in bringing
their motion. Sanctions are generally awarded in connection with
motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of
documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or
opposes a motion to compel.¿¿(Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c),¿2030.300(d),¿2031.300(c),¿and
2031.310(h).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if 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.”¿¿(Id.)
This
Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions if
and/when City files a Motion for Relief from Waiver. As to the Motion to Compel
Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Plaintiff has requested $1,000 in
sanctions. As to the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories,
Plaintiff has requested $1,000. As to the Motion to Compel Responses to the
Requests for Production of Documents, Plaintiff has requested $1,000. The
sanction amounts are based on the declarations of Michelle Hunter, Esq.
(“Hunter Decl.”) counsel for Plaintiff. Hunter indicates that her hourly rate
is $400, and that she spent two (2) hours on the moving papers of each motion,
and 0.5 hours on her meet and confer efforts per motion. The Court finds the
amounts requested to be reasonable, but will discuss with the parties its
intention to award sanctions if and/or when City seeks a Motion for Relief from
Waiver.
B. Motion
to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted.
i.
Legal Standard
Under Code of Civil Procedure
§ 2033.280(c), the court shall make the order deeming the truth of the matters
admitted unless the responding party serves before the hearing a proposed
response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with
Code Civ. Proc § 2033.220. Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220 requires that
each answer either admits, denies or specifies that the responding party lacks
sufficient information or knowledge. As stated in Demyer v. Costa Mesa
Mobile Home Estates, the moving party is not required to meet and confer
before bringing this action. (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates,
36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395.)¿¿
Code of Civil Procedure
section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court
may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the
discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,
incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery
process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of
discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)¿¿
ii.
Discussion
As
noted above, the Court ORDERS City to provide verified, code-compliant
responses without objections that either admit or deny the truth of the matters
asserted. The Court does not order the RFAs to be deemed admitted. Monetary
sanctions will be deferred pending either agreement of the parties or the City’s
promised motion for relief form waiver of the objections.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice.