Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV02425, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV02425 Hearing Date: January 26, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendant Los Angeles Family Housing-Pacoima Place’s motions to compel responses to form
interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for production, and to have
matters in requests for admissions deemed admitted are GRANTED. Plaintiff Valerie
White is ordered to provide verified responses to the discovery requests within
30 days of this order. The Court also finds Defendant is entitled to an order
establishing the truth of the matters in the request for admissions served on
Plaintiff.
Defendant’s requests for sanctions against
Plaintiff are GRANTED. Plaintiff
Valerie White is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $690 to Defendant
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 April 11, 2022, Defendant served Form
Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Admissions;
and Request for Production of Documents on Plaintiff Jessie Bautista. (Young
Decl. Exh. A.) Responses were due on May 13, 2022. Defense counsel granted an
extension to respond until June 10, 2022. (Id., ¶ 5.) On June 27, 2022,
Plaintiff’s counsel advised defense counsel that he had requested a hearing be
set for September 8, 2022, for a motion to withdraw as counsel. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh.
C.) To date, Plaintiff has not served responses to any of Defendant’s
discovery, thereby necessitating this motion. (Id., ¶ 8.)
As Defendant
properly served discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to provide responses,
the Court finds Defendant is entitled to a court order directing Plaintiff to
provide verified responses to the discovery requests served on Plaintiff.
The Court also finds Defendant 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’s
request for sanctions are granted, but in
reduced hours due to the simplicity of the motions and the concurrent facts.
Thus, the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $690 (2 hours
at $225 per hour, plus $240 in
filing fees), to be paid within 30 days of this order.
Conclusion
Defendant’s
motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories,
request for production, and to have matters in requests for admissions deemed
admitted are GRANTED. Plaintiff Valerie White is ordered to provide
verified responses to the discovery requests within 30 days of this order. The
Court also finds Defendant is entitled to an order establishing the truth of
the matters in the request for admissions served on Plaintiff.
Defendant’s requests for sanctions against Plaintiff are GRANTED. Plaintiff Valerie White is
ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $690 to Defendant within 30 days of
this order.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.