Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 19AVCV00135, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19AVCV00135-2 Hearing Date: September 6, 2022 Dept: A14
Background
This is personal injury action. Plaintiffs Laricka Bell (“Bell”) and Brooke Bashier (“Bashier” and collectively “Plaintiffs”) allege that on February 19, 2017 they stayed at Red Roof Inn and the next morning Bashier began to severely itch. Bell presents that she then inspected the bedding and found bed bugs in the bedding and then filed a complaint with management. Plaintiff further alleges on February 20, 2017, Bashier’s condition worsened and Bell took her to be treated at Kaiser Permanente where she was diagnosed with being bitten by bed bugs at Red Roof Inn. Plaintiffs contend that they never observed bedbugs in their residence or experienced bites from bedbugs in their residence prior or subsequent to the stay at Red Roof Inn. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that they threw out all clothing and luggage that was exposed to the bedbugs at Red Roof Inn in order to prevent infestation at their residence.
On February 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants Red Roof Inns, Inc. (“Red Roof Inns”), Red Roof Inn Palmdale – Lancaster, and Azad R. for seven (7) causes of action: (1) Battery, (2) Negligence, (3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”), (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”), (5) Fraudulent Concealment, (6) Private Nuisance, and (7) Public Nuisance.
On February 14, 2020, Red Roof Inns filed its Answer.
On March 09, 2021, Red Roof Inn Palmdale – Lancaster filed its Answer.
On March 02, 2022, Red Roof Inn Palmdale – Lancaster filed two motions: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. The motions were meant to compel responses from both Bell and Bashier.
On March 17, 2022, both motions were granted. Bell and Bashier were ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant Red Roof Inn Palmdale – Lancaster.
On July 15, 2022, Red Roof Inn Palmdale – Lancaster filed two motions: (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Laricka Bell’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Laricka Bell’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.
On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Oppositions.
On August 16, 2022, Red Roof Inn Palmdale – Lancaster filed its Replies.
-----
Analysis
Standard for Compelling Interrogatories – Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.290 provides that a party may bring a motion to compel responses to interrogatories, where the responding party failed to serve a timely response. Unless otherwise agreed, the responding party is required to serve response within 30 days after service of the discovery demand for production documents. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.290(b).) If the responding party fails to serve a timely response, the party “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . .” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.290(a).) The requesting party need not demonstrate “good cause to compel responses, nor that it satisfied the “meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 143 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)
Responses to interrogatories are due within 30 days after service of interrogatories. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260.) “The party propounding interrogatories and the responding party may agree to extend the time for service of a response to a set of interrogatories, or to particular interrogatories in a set, to a date beyond that provided in Section 2030.260.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.270(a).) While this agreement may be informal, it must be confirmed in writing. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.270(b).)
-----
Standard for Compelling Responses¿to Requests for¿Production¿(“RFP”)¿–¿Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 provides that a party may bring a motion to compel responses to a request for production of documents, where the responding party failed to serve a timely response. Unless otherwise agreed, the responding party is required to serve response within 30 days after service of the discovery demand for production documents. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260(a).) If the responding party fails to serve a timely response, the party “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . .” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) The requesting party need not demonstrate “good cause to compel responses, nor that it satisfied the “meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko¿Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants¿(2007) 143 Cal.App.4th¿390, 404.)
-----
Discussion
Application – As an initial matter, the Court has already granted a motion to compel for Bell’s responses to form interrogatories and RFPs.
Under Cal. Code Civ Proc. § 2030.290(c), “[i]f a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, discussing RFPs, has a similar provision in its subsection (c). (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c) [“If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”].)
Accordingly, the current motions are moot and a motion requesting sanctions should have been brought.
Despite this, Plaintiff’s counsel, Ilan Rosen Janfaza (“Janfaza”), has filed Oppositions to both motions in which he states Bell’s whereabouts are unknown, he is unaware of the reason Bell is not responding when his firm reaches out to her, and that he is filing a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel as to Bell as both he and his firm have exhausted their efforts in reaching out to Plaintiff. (See also Decl. Janfaza.)
Defendant has submitted his Replies to the Oppositions, which are substantially similar. Defendant emphasizes that it is imperative that Defendant receives discovery responses from Bell and take Bell’s deposition. Defendant reiterates its request for granting the motions to compel and monetary sanctions.
As mentioned, ante, the correct procedure outlined by statute is not a second motion to compel for each respective discovery request, but a motion or motions for sanctions as both the motions compelling Bell’s responses to form interrogatories and RFPs have been granted. The motions are MOOT.
That aside, imposing a sanction on Bell and her counsel, who cannot communicate with his client, will neither further the discovery request nor the action. Should Defendant seek to file a motion requesting sanctions, the Court believes it would be prudent to wait until Janfaza’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Laricka Bell is resolved.
-----
Conclusion
Defendant Red Roof Inn Palmdale – Lancaster’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Laricka Bell’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is MOOT.
Defendant Red Roof Inn Palmdale – Lancaster’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Laricka Bell's Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, is MOOT.
The Court had ordered Plaintiff Laricka Bell’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on March 17, 2022 when it granted Red Roof Inn Palmdale – Lancaster’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.