Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 19STCV00384 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV00384, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020)

IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants.

ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 19STCV00384 Hearing Date: October 21, 2022 Dept: 29

Monica Mena v. Mid City Fuel, Inc.

Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and Request for Sanctions filed by Plaintiff Monica Mena

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Monica Mena’s motions to compel verified responses to form interrogatories, request for production, and to have matters in requests for admissions deemed admitted are GRANTED. Defendant Erasmo G. Gruz is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to the discovery at issue within 30 days of this order. The Court deems the matters within Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Defendant Cruz.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant Erasmo G. Gruz and counsel of record Salvador Alva are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $700, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.

Legal Standard

Compel Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905–906.)

Deem RFAs Admitted

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted…. The 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 Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect…. (c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.

Compel RPDs

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) 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.

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and 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 unless 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).)

Under CCP section 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

Discussion

On February 16, 2022, Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories, Set Two; Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and Request for Admissions, Set One on Defendant Erasmo Cruz. (Downey Decl., ¶ 2; Ex. 1.) Defendant’s deadline to respond was March 22, 2022. (Id., ¶ 3.) On April 5, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer email to defense counsel regarding the past-due responses and requesting responses be provided by April 8, 2022. (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. 2.) Defendant did not provide the responses. (Id., ¶.)

As Plaintiff properly served discovery requests and Defendant failed to serve any responses, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to a court order directing Defendant to provide verified responses without objections to the discovery requests served on Defendant. The Court also finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order establishing the truth of the matters in the request for admissions served on Defendant. Therefore, the motions are granted.

As the motions are granted, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also granted, but in a reduced amount due to the simplicity of the motions and the concurrent nature of the facts. Therefore, Defendant and counsel of record Salvador Alva are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $700 ($350 per hour, for 2 hours), jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel verified responses to form interrogatories, request for production, and to have matters in requests for admissions deemed admitted are GRANTED. Defendant Erasmo G. Gruz is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to the discovery at issue within 30 days of this order. The Court deems the matters within Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Defendant Cruz.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.