Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 22AVCV00022, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AVCV00022    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: A14

Background

 

This is a premises liability action. Plaintiff David Ditzler (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on February 17, 2020, he was at 4700 Crown Valley Rd. when Defendants Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. (“Equity Lifestyle”), Thousand Trails Campground (“Thousand Trails”), MHC Properties Management negligently owned, operated, managed, and maintained the subject premises in violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a) and, due to Defendants’ lack of ordinary care, Plaintiff sustained injuries as well as pain and suffering.

 

On January 06, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Complaint alleging two causes of action for General Negligence and Premises Liability.

 

On May 10, 2022, Plaintiff amended the fictitious name of Doe 1 to MHC Property Management, L.P. and amended the incorrect name of Thousand Trails to MCH TT, L.P.

 

On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed Equity Lifestyle and MHC Properties Management without prejudice.

 

On June 07, 2022, MHC TT, L.P., and MHC Property Management, L.P. (collectively “Defendants”) filed their Answer.

 

On December 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed three motions:

 

 

No Opposition has been filed. “All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days. . .before the hearing.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).) The hearing is scheduled for January 31, 2023. As such, an Opposition was due on January 18, 2023. Should an Opposition be filed, it is now untimely.

 

-----

 

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.)

 

----

 

Standard for Deeming Admissions Admitted – Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.010, the propounding 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, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(b).) Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c) states, in relevant part: “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. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)

 

-----

 

Discussion

 

Application –

 

  1. Motion to Compel

 

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s two motions to compel states:

 

The California Code of Civil Procedure does not require a meet-and-confer letter from the propounding party when the responding party has failed to respond to discovery requests. California Judges Discovery Bench Book § 14.18 Although no informal attempts are required to obtain answers where no responses are received, (Leach v. Superior Court (1980), 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 906), Plaintiff has nevertheless made good faith attempts to resolve this matter informally with opposing counsel, which attempts were futile, necessitating the instant motion. See Exhibit 6.

 

(Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories 5:10-16, Motion to Compel RFPs 4:12-18.)

 

The Court’s own rules state as follows:

 

D. INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCES

 

 In the event a party seeks to file a motion to compel discovery at any time during the pendency of this action, the parties are required to meet-and-confer in good faith in person, by telephone, or by videoconference. If the parties cannot resolve the issue, they must then schedule an IDC via CRS before filing any motion to compel. The 45-day deadline to bring a motion to compel further responses to discovery will be tolled between the date of the informal discovery conference scheduling order and the informal discovery conference, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.080(c)(2). At least seven (7) days before the IDC, the parties shall file a joint report that succinctly sets forth the nature of the dispute, the necessity for the discovery, the justification for its non-production, and the overall status of discovery. The parties are encouraged to identify specific issues, the resolution of which may resolve the discovery dispute. A courtesy copy of the report shall be delivered to the courtroom within one (1) court day of the electronic filing. The Court generally holds IDCs Monday through Thursday at 10:00 a.m. unless the Court is in trial. The Court limits the number of IDCs to two per day

 

(LASC Courtroom Information Dept. A14 <https://www.lacourt.org/courtroominformation/ui/result.aspx> [as of Jan. 05, 2023].)

 

As such, an IDC is needed prior to the hearing of these discovery motions. The Court declines to rule on the motions to compel at this time.

 

  1. Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted

 

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.250 provides:¿ 

¿ 

“Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared, unless on motion of the requesting party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.”¿ 

¿ 

(Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.250(a).)¿ 

¿ 

Plaintiff served his Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) on September 23, 2022 to Plaintiff’s counsel’s email address of record. Thus, responses were due October 23, 2022. (Motion for Deemed Admissions, Exh. 5.) Plaintiffs’ counsel, Jo Caro (“Caro”), has attached his attempt to contact Plaintiff via email on November 29, 2022 (Id., Exh. 6) and a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that MHC TT, L.P. did not respond to either the RFAs or the email. (Id., Decl. Caro ¶¶ 8-10.) The evidence provided by Plaintiff is sufficient to show that MHC TT, L.P., failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s properly served RFAs.

¿ 

Defendant does not present any evidence otherwise. 

 

Accordingly, the Motion for Deemed Admissions is GRANTED. 

 

 

-----

 

  1. Sanctions

 

As the Court did not rule on the Motions to Compel, it focuses solely on the request for sanctions within the Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted.

 

Plaintiff provides only an amount for all three motions together – $1,900.00 [7 hrs @ $250.00/hr + ($60.00 (filing fee) x 3)].

“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.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c).)  

 

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010 ) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2033.280(c).)  

 

MHC TT, L.P., does not provide a reason for failure to respond to the RFAs.

 

Accordingly, sanctions are GRANTED for the Motion to Deem RFAs MHC TT, L.P., and his counsel, collectively, are ordered to pay $500.00.

 

-----

 

Conclusion

 

The Court declines to rule on Defendant Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production, Set One, Against Defendant MCH TT, L.P., and Motion to Compel Responses to Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Against Defendant MHC TT, L.P.

 

Plaintiff David Ditzler’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One, Admitted against Defendant MHC TT, L.P. is GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, sanctions are GRANTED for the Motion to Deem RFAs MHC TT, L.P., and his counsel, collectively, are ordered to pay $500.00.