Judge Sandy N. Leal, Case 2022-01260364 2023-06-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: 2022-01260364, Date: 2023-06-15 Tentative Ruling

1) Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories

2) Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions

Defendant, Amazon.com Services, LLC’s (Defendant) Motion to Compel Glen Stern to Provide Verified Responses to Inspection Demands, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Sets One and Two and Requests for Admission, Set One (Motion) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Merits

Defendant moves to compel Defendant Glen Stern (Stern) to provide verified response, without objection to Inspection Demands, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Sets One and Two and Requests for Admission, Set One.

Request for Production, Interrogatories

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: [¶] (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). [¶] (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. [¶] (c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a)(1), (c).)

“If a party 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 objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010)…¶] (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.. (c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a), (c).)

Here, Exhibits D and G to the Declaration of Alexander Chen (ROA 52) show that Defendant Stern was served with the Request for Production and Interrogatories at issue in this Motion on 11-8 and 12-9-22. The discovery was served to the address on Plaintiff’s Proof of Service of Summons for Stern (ROA 31). The Motion contends that Stern has not responded to this discovery and Stern has not filed an Opposition to challenge this contention. (see Motion, 3:9-17; Declaration of Alexander Chen, ¶ 11.)

Stern has not filed an Opposition to challenge this contention.

Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED as to the request for order compelling responses to Requests for Production, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Sets One and Two.

Request for Admissions

Defendant moves to compel a response to its Request for Admissions, Set One. However, the Code of Civil Procedure does not permit a motion to compel initial responses to request for admission. Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(b) states that a party propounding requests for admission may “move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted” if the responding party has not served a timely response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(b).)

Therefore, because a Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Requests for Admissions is not permitted, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED without prejudice as to the request for order compelling responses to Request for Admissions.

Monetary Sanctions

Defendant seeks sanctions of $2,310 against Stern in connection with this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.300, 2030.290 and 2033.280. Defense counsel attests that amount includes 4 hours of attorney time “in pursuit of this matter,” an expected 2 hours drafting a reply and appearing for and attending the hearing of this motion, at a billing rate of $375. (Chen Decl., ¶ 12.) Amazon also requests reimbursement of a $60 filing fee. (Id.)

The Court is inclined to award sanctions against Stern. However, here, Stern did not file an Opposition and Defendant did not file a Reply, and the Court has denied a portion of the motion because it was not permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,372.50 against Stern and in favor of Defendant.

Defendant Stern is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection to Requests for Production Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Sets One and Two and produce responsive documents, if any, within 30 days of notice of this ruling. Defendant is also ordered to pay sanctions within 30 days of notice of this ruling.

Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC to give notice.