Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV21554, Date: 2023-09-26 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)
Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020)
IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants.
ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.
Case Number: 21STCV21554 Hearing Date: September 26, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendant’s motions are GRANTED.
Background
This case
arises out of an alleged vehicle accident between Plaintiff Paige Herbert
(“Plaintiff”) and Defendant William Hannaford (“Defendant”) on July 28, 2019
near the intersection of Los Coyote Diagonal and Carson Street in Long Beach,
California.
On June 9,
2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1 through 10 asserting
causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. On October 15, 2021, Defendant filed his
answer.
As it
relates to the matters before the Court on September 26, 2023, Defendant propounded
the following discovery on May 9, 2023: (1) Requests for Admission (Set One);
(2) Special Interrogatories (Set Two): and (3) Request for Production of
Documents (Set Two). (Wells Decls., ¶¶
2, 5 & Exhs. A.) As of the date of
filing, no responses had been received.
(Id., ¶¶ 4, 6.)
On August 15, 2023,
Defendant filed a total of five discovery motions, the following three of which
are set for hearing on September 26: (1) motion for an order deeming admitted
the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set One); (2) motion
for an order compelling initial responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two): and (3) motion for an
order compelling initial responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set
Two). Defendant also seeks sanctions in each
motion.
Plaintiff has not filed any
response to these motions.
The Court is aware that the
two other discovery motions filed on August 15 are set for hearing on September
27, 2023.
Legal Standard
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).)
A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after
service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories
are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party may move
for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Id., § 2030.290,
subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and
no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2030.290; 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., § 2030.290,
subd. (a).)
When a party moves to compel initial responses to interrogatories,
“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., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)
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,
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., § 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).)
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).)
On May 9, 2023, Defendant served (1) Requests
for Admission (Set One); (2) Special Interrogatories (Set Two): and (3) Request
for Production of Documents (Set Two).
(Wells Decls., ¶¶ 2, 5 & Exhs. A.)
Plaintiff has not responded. (Id.,
¶¶ 4, 6.)
Defendants has made a sufficient showing in support of
each of its motions. Accordingly, all
three motions are GRANTED.
Defendant’s requests for sanctions are also granted. Given the relatively straightforward nature
of a motion to compel initial responses (or to deem the truth admitted of the
matters specified in requests for admission), and the economies of scale
associated with filing parallel discovery motions, the Court award sanctions in
the amount of $322.50 per motion, calculated as 1.5 hours of attorney time per
motion, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $175 per hour, plus the $60
filing fee.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS
Defendant’s motion and DEEMS ADMITTED the truth of the matters specified in
Requests for Admission (Set One).
The Court
GRANTS Defendant’s two motions to compel.
Plaintiff
is ORDERED to serve verified, code-compliant, written responses to Defendant’s
Special Interrogatories (Set Two), without objection, within 30 days of notice
of this order.
Plaintiff
is ORDERED to serve verified, code-compliant, written responses to Defendant’s Requests
for Production of Documents (Set Two), without objection, within 30 days of
notice of this order.
The Court GRANTS
Defendant’s request for sanctions.
Plaintiff
and counsel of record Robin E. Paley, Esq., are ordered, jointly and severally,
to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant under the Civil Discovery Act in the total
amount of $967.50 ($322.50 per motion, multiplied by three motions) within 30
days of notice of this order.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice.