Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV33534, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33534    Hearing Date: November 13, 2024    Dept: 29

Brown v. Buck
21STCV33534
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and (Set Two)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One) Defendant’s Motion for Order Deeming Plaintiff to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One)

Tentative

The motions to compel are granted.

The motion for a deemed-admitted order is granted.

The requests for sanctions are granted in part and denied in part.

Background

On September 10, 2021, Dane Brown (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Edward Buck (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 20 for (1) sexual battery, (2) assault, (3) battery, (4) hate violence, (5) negligence, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (7) human trafficking.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant caused Plaintiff to overdose on methamphetamines twice in one week in September 2019.  According to the complaint, Defendant was criminally charged with (among other things) distribution of methamphetamines resulting in death and convicted in July 2021.

Defendant filed his answer on July 13, 2023.

Plaintiff initially represented himself, but on February 13, 2024, Plaintiff substituted in counsel.

On October 4, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for an order deeming Plaintiff to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Request for Admissions (Set One).  Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions.  The motion was initially set for hearing on November 4. 

On October 10, 2024, Defendant filed the motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production.  On all three motions, Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions.  These motions were set for hearing on November 13.

On October 29, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing on the motion for a deemed-admitted order to November 13. 

Plaintiff filed (untimely) oppositions to the four motions on November 4.  Defendant filed a combined reply on November 7.

Legal Standard

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).)

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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 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 truth of the matters specified 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., § 2023.020, subd. (a).)

Discussion

Defendant served Plaintiff with Request for Admissions (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Sets One and Two), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production (Set One). (Myer Decl., ¶ 2; Joseph Decls., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff has not responded to this discovery.  (Myer Decl., ¶ 14; Joseph Decls., ¶ 6.)

The Court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s four untimely oppositions.  In each of the oppositions, Plaintiff’s counsel states (among other things) that Plaintiff “has been periodically unhoused since the filing of this action,” that Plaintiff suffers from “severe illnesses that periodically render him disabled,” and that counsel has been unable to contact Plaintiff.  (Gyamfi Decls., ¶¶ 2-8.)

On these facts, the four motions are granted.  Plaintiff is a civil litigant and has an obligation to comply with his obligations under the Civil Discovery Act.  The failure to communicate with counsel does not excuse those obligations.  The Court orders Plaintiff to respond to the interrogatories and document requests and grants the motion for a deemed-admitted order, as it must under the applicable statutes.

As for sanctions, beginning with motion for a deemed-admitted order, the Civil Discovery Act states that the imposition of monetary sanctions is “mandatory,” with no exception, against the party or attorney (or both) “whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Here, the failure was entirely the result of the conduct of Plaintiff, and not counsel, and so no sanctions are imposed against counsel.  Plaintiff, however, is subject to mandatory sanctions.  The Court sets sanctions in the amount of $700, based on two hours of attorney time multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $350 per hour. 

Turning to the three motions to compel, the governing provisions of the Civil Discovery Act provide for sanctions 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, subd. (c) &  2031.300, subd. (c).)  Neither Plaintiff nor counsel acted with substantial justification, but in these circumstances the imposition of sanctions would be unjust.  As to counsel, she has been put in an untenable position by her client; it would be unjust to impose a sanction on counsel who has done nothing wrong and whose exposure to sanctions is entirely the result of the conduct of her client.  As to Plaintiff himself, the Court is aware that it previously sanctioned him in the amount of $700, and the Court has just sanctioned him in the amount of an additional $700.  Moreover, the Court is now informed that Plaintiff is homeless and frequently suffers from disabling illnesses.  The Court finds that imposing additional monetary sanctions on a homeless, ill person, under the unique circumstances of this case, would be unjust.

Conclusion

The Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel and Defendant’s motion for a deemed-admitted order.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Dane Brown to serve written, verified, code compliant responses, without objection to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Sets One and Two) within 30 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Dane Brown to serve written, verified, code compliant responses, without objection to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 30 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Dane Brown to serve written, verified, code compliant responses, without objection to Defendant’s Requests for Production (Set One) within 30 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff Dane Brown is DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED the truth of the matters specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admission (Set One).

The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant’s requests for sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Brown to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Defendant (through counsel) in the amount of $700 within 30 days of notice.

The Court otherwise DENIES Defendant’s requests for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.