Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV01593, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV01593    Hearing Date: November 6, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                    November 6, 2024

¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                   24TRCV01593

¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Marsha Caree Michael v. Lyft, Inc., et al.

¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Yan Zhang

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff, Marsha Caree Michael 

TRIAL DATE:                           Not Set. 

¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                                  (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One  

                                                (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One  

(3) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

(4) Motion for Deemed Admissions, Set One

(5) Request for Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One is MOOTED.

                                                (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is MOOTED.

(3) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is MOOTED.

(4) Motion for Deemed Admissions, Set One Admitted is MOOTED.

(5) Request for $4,235 in Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED, payable by Plaintiff and her counsel to Zhang’s counsel on or before December 6, 2024.

I. BACKGROUND¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿ 

On May 9, 2024, Plaintiff, Marsha Caree Michael (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Lyft, Inc., Yan Zhang, Airport Automotive Center, Manuel Flores, and DOES 1 through 50. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training, and Supervision; and (3) Negligent Entrustment.

On July 9, 2024, Cross-Complainant, Yan Zhang filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant, Manuel Flores, and ROES 1 through 30. The cross-complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; (2) Equitable Indemnity; (3) Comparative Contribution; (4) Apportionment of Fault; and (5) Declaratory Relief.

On June 19, 2024, Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Yan Zhang (“Zhang”) served Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Requests for Admission, Set One on Plaintiff, Marsha Caree Michael. Plaintiff’s responses were due on July 23, 2024. On July 19, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Zhang’s counsel that they required more time. Zhang granted an extension to August 13, 2024. Zhang then provided a second extension to Plaintiff corresponding to a deadline of August 23, 2024. On August 23, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel requested a third extension to provide responses, which was granted, imposing a new deadline of August 27, 2024. However, as of the date Zhang filed these motions, Zhang states that Plaintiff has not served responses to any of the propounded discovery despite sending two follow up emails past the August 27, 2024 deadline to remind Plaintiff’s counsel of the deadline.

As such, Zhang has filed Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s initial responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, as well as Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted. 

B. Procedural¿¿ 

            On September 30, 2024, Defendant Zhang filed Motions to Compel Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted. On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a joint opposition brief as to each of the motions. On October 30, 2024, Zhang filed a reply brief.  

II. ANALYSIS

A.    Motions to Compel Initial Responses

¿ 

Plaintiff’s opposition acknowledges that she did not provide timely responses to the propounded discovery. However, Plaintiff has also since provided objection-free, verified responses to Zhang’s first set of propounded discovery prior to filing the opposition. “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, 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).)

The court determines that the motion to compel an initial response to the interrogatories, document demands, and the motion to deem requests for admission as admitted have been MOOTED by Plaintiff’s service of belated written responses. However, the mooting of the substantive motions does not moot Zhang’s request for sanctions.

B.    Sanctions       

Defendant Zhang has also requested monetary sanctions in bringing his 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.) 

Further, 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.)¿¿ 

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, Defendant Zhang has requested $1,058.75 per motion ($4,235 total). As for the request for sanctions in each of the motions, the motions regarding interrogatories and document demands, the decision of whether to grant or deny sanctions is discretionary with the court. However, as for the motion to deem requests for admission as admitted, sanctions are mandatory when a responding party untimely, but prior to the hearing, files verified, code-complaint responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

The amount requested is based on the declaration of Zhang’s counsel, Maxwell R. Schrieffer, Esq. (“Schrieffer Decl.”) which asserts that his billing rate for these matters is $200/hour. Schrieffer states that he spent two hours preparing each motion, anticipates spending one hour reviewing Plaintiff’s opposition and drafting a reply, anticipates one hour to attend the hearing, spent $60 on the filing fees for each motion, and the court reporter fee is $795 – so Schrieffer allotted $198.75 per motion. The court finds the hourly rate, and amount of time spent to be reasonable as to each motion. Thus, the court GRANTS each of Zhang’s four (4) Requests for Monetary Sanctions.

Plaintiff and her counsel are ordered to pay $4,235 to Zhang’s counsel, Maxwell R. Schrieffer on or before December 6, 2024.

III. CONCLUSION

            For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that Zhang’s substantive motions are MOOTED. However, the Court GRANTS Zhang’s Request for Monetary Sanctions.  Defendant Zhang is ordered to provide notice.