Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV03987, Date: 2024-09-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23TRCV03987 Hearing Date: September 6, 2024 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling¿¿
¿¿¿
HEARING DATE: September 6, 2024¿
¿¿¿
CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV03987
¿¿¿
CASE NAME: Mattie Foster Hudson v. Food 4 Less GM,
Inc., et al.
¿¿¿
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff,
Mattie Foster Hudson
¿¿¿
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Ralphs Grocery Company dba Food 4 Less
¿¿¿
TRIAL DATE: Not Set.
¿¿¿
MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel Defendant to respond to Form Interrogatories
and Special Interrogatories, Set One
(2) Motion to Compel
Defendant to respond to Request for
Production of Documents, Set One
(3) Motion to Deem
Requests for Admission Admitted
(4) Request for
Sanctions
Tentative Rulings: (1) MOOTED, without prejudice
to a motion to compel further responses.
The Court cannot rule -- in a motion to compel initial responses -- on
belatedly served objections; that requires a separate motion or motions if the
parties cannot resolve by themselves the issues of allegedly deficient responses
served while these motions were pending.
(2) Ditto
(3) Ditto
(4) GRANTED, but in
an amount to be later determined if the parties cannot resolve the issue
themselves. Given the fact that it took the
filing of motions to compel and to deem RFAs admitted before any response was
served, monetary sanctions are quite appropriate regardless of any claimed
confusion during the transition of this matter from one set of attorneys to another. The Court will set a continued hearing date in
October on the sanctions aspect of these motions if the parties do not resolve
that issue themselves.
I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿
¿¿¿
A. Factual¿¿¿
¿¿¿
On November 30, 2023, Plaintiff, Mattie Foster Hudson (“Plaintiff”)
filed a Complaint against Defendants, Food 4 Less GM, Inc., Food 4 Less
Holdings, Inc., Food 4 Less of Southern California, Inc., Food 4 Less of
California, inc. dba Food 4 Less, and DOES 1 through 25. The Complaint alleges
causes of action for: (1) General Negligence; and (2) Premises Liability.
Plaintiff’s moving papers assert that on May 7, 2024,
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 Ralphs Grocery Company dba Food 4 Less (“Ralphs”). On June
12, 2024, after not receiving timely responses, Plaintiff further notes that
her counsel sent a written meet and confer email to defense counsel advising
that the responses were overdue, that Ralphs had waived all objections to
discovery, and giving Ralphs until July 3, 2024 to provide fully compliant,
verified responses along with requested documents.
On June 12, 2024, Plaintiff asserts that Defense
counsel replied seeking a copy of the email with E-Service of the discovery
propounded on Defendant. That same day, Plaintiff’s counsel forwarded the
original email with E-Service of set one discovery propounded on Ralphs, served
on email addresses provided by the prior Defense counsel. Further, Plaintiff’s
counsel notes that the email confirmation from the defense firm paralegal, on
May 7, 2024, was also forwarded, confirming receipt of the discovery at issue
and copying defense counsel, Joseph Lara on the email confirming receipt.
On June 12, 2024, June 13, 2024, and June 27, 2024,
Plaintiff notes that Plaintiff’s Counsel and Defense Counsel, met and conferred
as to waiver of objections, and Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to Defendant
asserting objections as to two requests for production and again requested that
Defendant serve verified, code-compliant responses by July 3, 2024. On July 10,
2024, Plaintiff asserts that Defense Counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel via
email that they could provide responses with verifications to follow “likely in
August.” Plaintiff contends that on July 15, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel replied
to Defense Counsel asking for responses and documents. That same day, Plaintiff
notes that her counsel replied to Defense counsel’s follow up email and again
requested responses and documents “as soon as possible.”
However, Plaintiff notes that as of the date of filing
the motion (July 24, 2024), Plaintiff’s counsel had yet to receive any
responses or documents to set one of Plaintiff’s propounded discovery, which
was properly served on Defendant on May 7, 2024.
As such, Plaintiff has filed these Motions to Compel
Initial Responses as well as Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted.
B. Procedural¿¿¿
¿¿
On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed these
Motions to Compel and Requests to Deem Request for Admission Admitted. On
August 23, 2024, Ralphs filed corresponding opposition briefs, asserting that responses
had been belatedly served on August 19, 2024. On August 29, 2024, Plaintiff
filed an Omnibus Reply Brief.
¿II.
ANALYSIS¿¿
¿¿
A.
Motions to
Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests
for Production of Documents, Set one
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.
Discussion
Here, Plaintiff has requested this Court order
Defendant’s verified, code-compliant responses without objection to Form
Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of
Documents, Set One. Defendant Ralphs does not disagree that it failed to timely
respond to Plaintiff’s propounded discovery. In the opposition brief, Ralph’s counsel
asserts that on August 19, 2024, Defendant Ralphs served Plaintiff with full
and complete responses, and subsequently provided verification on August 21,
2024. However, the responses nonetheless contain objections.
Regardless of the parties’ efforts to combine their arguments
on original lack of any response with their arguments on the sufficiency of the
belated responses (and the objections), and the asserted grounds for relief from
waiver of the right to object, the constellation of arguments bearing on the August
19, 2024 written responses is premature.
This is a motion to compel INITIAL, not FURTHER responses. The pending motions were filed before any
responses were served, before any objections were asserted, and before
additional meet-and-confer efforts to address the asserted inadequacy of the belated
responses. There is no separate statement
required for a motion to compel initial responses, but one is required for
FURTHER responses. The Code has different
provisions for motions to compel further responses, for an order addressing objections,
and for argument as to whether objections are deemed waived or whether relief from
the deemed waiver should be afforded. Those
latter issues are not properly before the Court at this time.
The Court
determines that the motion to compel an initial response to the interrogatories
and document demands has been MOOTED by Defendant’s service of belated written
responses and even more belated verifications during the pendency of these
motions. The issue of waived objections or
relief from any such waiver was not presented by the notice of motion and must thus
be addressed in a future motion, unless the parties can resolve those issues by
meeting and conferring as to the same. The Court thus encourages the parties
to stipulate to extend the time to bring a motion to compel FURTHER responses,
to meet and confer on resolving the objections and claimed insufficient substantive
responses, and to attempt to narrow the remaining issues if any requiring the
Court’s assistance in resolving.
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.¿¿(CCP §§ 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.) The Court finds that, based on the fact that
Plaintiff was forced to bring these motions after Defendant failed to timely
provide any written responses, monetary sanctions are warranted. The Court will
set a future, continued hearing on the sanctions aspect of these motions to
allow the parties the opportunity to resolve the sanctions and objections
issues themselves. By way of tentative ruling,
the Court would be inclined to grant monetary sanctions regardless of whether
there was confusion in the transition of counsel for the defendant here.
B. Motion
to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted
Legal Standard
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).) Monetary
sanctions are mandatory when a
responding party serves a belated response to a set of RFAs after the propounding
party has been required to file a motion for deemed admissions. (CCP§§ 2030.280(c).)
The Court determines that the motion to compel an initial response
to the set of RFAs has been mooted by Defendant’s service of belated admission and
denials during the pendency of these motions.
The issue of waived objections or relief from any such waiver was not presented
by the notice of motion and must thus be addressed in a future motion, unless the
parties can resolve those issues by meeting and conferring as to the same.
III. CONCLUSION¿¿¿
¿¿¿¿
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Form
Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of
Documents are MOOTED by Defendant’s service of written responses while these motions
were pending. The Court is inclined to
award monetary sanctions, but will delay deciding the same or the amount of
monetary sanctions pending an opportunity for counsel to meet and confer on the
objections issues and amount of monetary sanctions given that Plaintiff acted
with substantial justification in filing these motions after receiving no
substantive responses despite written meet and confer efforts with counsel of
record for Defendant.