Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV03964, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23TRCV03964 Hearing Date: November 8, 2024 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling¿
¿¿
HEARING DATE: November 8, 2024
¿¿
CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV03964
¿¿
CASE NAME: Steven
J. Saporito v. William J. Martin, et al.
¿¿
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff
and Cross-Defendant, Steven J. Saporito, individually and Trustee of the Steven
J. Saporito Revocable Trust dated April 23, 2003
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant
and Cross-Complainant, William J. Martin
TRIAL DATE: Not Set.
¿¿
MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel William J. Martin’s Responses to Request for
Production, Set One.
(2) Motion Establishing Admissions of Requests for Admission, Set One
of William J. Martin’s
(3) Motion Establishing
Admissions of Requests for Admission, Set Two of William J. Martin’s
(4) Request for Monetary
Sanctions
Tentative Rulings: (1) Motion to Compel William J. Martin’s Responses to Request for
Production, Set One is GRANTED
(2) Motion Establishing Admissions of Requests for Admission, Set One
of William J. Martin’s is GRANTED
(3) Motion Establishing
Admissions of Requests for Admission, Set Two of William J. Martin’s is GRANTED
(4) Request for Monetary
Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND¿¿
¿¿
A. Factual¿¿
On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff, Steven J.
Saporito, individually and as Trustee of The Steven J. Saporito Revocable Trust
dated April 23, 2003 (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants,
William J. Martin, an individual Flagstar Bank, FSB, a business entity form
unknown, New York Community Bancorp, Inc., and DOES 1 through 25. The complaint
alleges causes of action for: (1) Partition by Sale
of Real Property; (2) Accounting; (3) Constructive Trust; and (4) Declaratory
Relief.
On February 20, 2024,
Defendant and Cross-Complainant, William J. Martin, filed a cross-complaint
alleging claims for: (1) Breach of Express Contract; (2) Breach of Implied
Contract; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (4) Negligent
Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (5) Declaratory Relief.
On June 14, 2024,
Plaintiff propounded Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Requests
for Admission, Set One, and Request for Admission, Set Two on Defendant Martin.
Responses were due by July 17, 2024. Despite Plaintiff’s counsel requesting responses
from Defendant Martin’s counsel, Steven Stolar (“Stolar” on August 7, 2024,
September 9, 2024, and September 16, 2024, Defendant Martin has failed to
respond to discovery. Plaintiff states that although Defendant Martin’s
counsel, Stolar, addressed other issues raised in Plaintiff’s counsel’s
September 9, 2024 email, Stolar has yet to address any of the requests that
discovery responses be provided or otherwise promise discovery responses.
Therefore, Plaintiff has brought this motion to compel initial responses to
Request for Production, Set One, and Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set
One and Set Two as Admitted.
B. Procedural¿¿
On October 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel
Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and Motion to Deem
Requests for Admission, Set One and Set Two as Admitted. To date, no opposition
briefs have been filed. On November 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed notices of
non-opposition.
II. ANALYSIS
A.
Motions to Compel Initial Responses
i.
Legal Standard
Where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure section
2031.010 demand, the demanding party
must seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 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, because Defendant Martin has failed to comply with discovery
by failing to serve timely responses to Plaintiff’s propounded discovery,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Initial Responses, without objection to Request
for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED.
iii.
Sanctions
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).)¿¿
Here, because this court has GRANTED Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set
One, this court notes that it will not be granting discovery sanctions as to
this specific motion without prejudice to be brought again if Defendant Martin
seeks relief from waiver of objections.
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
Again, as noted above, due to Defendant Martin’s failure to timely
respond to either of Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One and Set Two,
this court GRANTS both of Plaintiff’s Motions for Orders Deeming Requests for
Admission as Admitted.
iii.
Sanctions
Under Code of Civil Procedure
section 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 section 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.)¿¿
Although sanctions are mandatory when a responding party untimely,
but prior to the hearing, files verified, code-complaint responses (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c)), they are discretionary when responding party fails
entirely to respond. Here, because this court’s granting of both of Plaintiff’s
motions regarding set one and set two of Requests for Admission, such a ruling
is so detrimental to Defendant Martin’s defense of this case, that also
awarding sanctions may be too harsh a ruling. Thus, like with the above ruling,
this court DENIES sanctions at this time, without prejudice, to be asserted
again if Defendant Martin seeks relief from waiver.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this
court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions. Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions
are DENIED without prejudice, to be asserted again if Defendant Martin seeks
relief from waiver.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide
notice.