Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV02403, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV02403, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02403 Hearing Date: October 4, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in part.

Background

This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident that allegedly occurred on April 21, 2019, near the intersection of York Boulevard and Vista Drive in Los Angeles, California.

On January 21, 2021, Plaintiff Lindsey Esquivel and Sally Ydelbira Tipple (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Jeanine Rohn (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 100 alleging causes of action for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence. Defendant filed her answer on September 7, 2022.

On May 17, 2023, Defendant filed multiple motions to compel initial responses to discovery. Before the Court at this time are two of those motions: (1) Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to provide initial responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One); and (2) Defendant’s motion for an order deeming admitted the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set One) served on Plaintiff. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions in each motion.

Plaintiff has not filed any opposition.

The Court is aware that six other discovery motions were heard on October 3 and 4.

Legal Standard

A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

When a party moves to compel initial responses to requests for production, “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 [the motion], 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

A party must respond to requests for admission within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for admission are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for such a motion, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2033.280; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

The court “shall” make the order that the truth of the matters specified in the request be deemed admitted unless the court “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.” (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (c); see St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778-780.)

“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 [to deem admitted the matters contained in the requests for admission].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Discussion

On October 24, 2022, Defendant served on Plaintiff Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One). (Bakshandeh Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff has not served responses. (Bakshandeh Decls., ¶ 12.)

Defendant need show nothing more. As to the document requests, Defendant’s motion to compel is granted.

As to the requests for admission, Defendant’s motion to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission is granted.

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are granted in part. Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses, and the economies of scale associated with filing multiple parallel motions, the Court awards sanctions on each motion in the amount of $510, calculated as 1.5 hours of attorney work on each motion, multiplied by a reasonable rate for this work of $300 per hour, plus the filing fee of $60 per motion. (See Bakshandeh Decl., ¶ 14.)

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide verified, code-compliant, written responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) within 30 days of the notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for a “deem admitted” order. The Court DEEMS ADMITTED THE TRUTH of the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set One) directed to Plaintiff.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in part.

Plaintiff and counsel of record Yoon Kim are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the total amount of $1,020 within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party to give notice.