Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV44239, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44239    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendants Kristin Norton and Brian Rivera’s motions to compel interrogatories and to have matters in requests for admissions deemed admitted are GRANTED. Plaintiff Emily Lucitt is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to the discovery served upon Plaintiff within 30 days of this order. The truth of the matters in Defendant Rivera’s request for admissions, set one, served on Plaintiff is deemed admitted.

Defendant Norton’s requests for sanctions against Plaintiff is GRANTED. The Court orders Plaintiff Emily Lucitt and counsel of record Tara Heckard-Bryant to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $260, jointly and severally, to Defendant Norton within 30 days of this order.

Defendant’s Rivera’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

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.

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 July 19, 2022, Defendants Kristin Norton and Brian Rivera served upon Plaintiff Emily Lucitt, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Admissions, Set One, respectively. (Slack Decl., Exh. A.) Defendants granted Plaintiff an extension to November 1, 2022, to respond to Defendants' discovery. To date, no responses to the discovery were provided. (Id., ¶ 6.)

As Defendants properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to provide any responses, the Court finds Defendant Norton is entitled to a court order directing Plaintiff to provide responses to the discovery requests served on Plaintiff.  The Court also finds Defendant Rivera is entitled to an order establishing the truth of the matters in the request for admissions served on Plaintiff.  Therefore, the motions are granted. 

As the motions are granted, Defendant Norton’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Emily Lucitt and counsel of record Tara Heckard-Bryant is granted in reduced hours due to the simplicity of the motion, in the amount of $260 (1 hour at $200 per hour, plus $60 in filing fees).

As to Defendant Rivera’s request for sanctions, CCP section 2023.040 states that: “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” Defendant Rivera’s notice of motion does not identify who he is seeking sanctions against. Thus, Defendant Rivera’s request is denied as the notice is defective.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendants’ motions to compel interrogatories and to have matters in requests for admissions deemed admitted are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to the discovery served upon Plaintiff within 30 days of this order. The truth of the matters in Defendant Rivera’s request for admissions, set one, served on Plaintiff is deemed admitted.

Defendant Norton’s requests for sanctions against Plaintiff is GRANTED. The Court orders Plaintiff Emily Lucitt and counsel of record Tara Heckard-Bryant to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $260, jointly and severally, to Defendant Norton within 30 days of this order.

Defendant’s Rivera’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.