Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV37237, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV37237 Hearing Date: September 6, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s two requests to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified
in the requests for admission.
The Court
DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s two requests to compel initial responses to form
interrogatories.
The Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions.
Background
On October 8, 2021, Plaintiff Maria Luisa
Palacios (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Jasmine Priscilla
Ruiz and Ilario Ruiz (“Defendants”), and Does 1 through 100 asserting causes of
action for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence. The
underlying incident occurred on May 16, 2020, on Puente Avenue in Baldwin Park,
California.
Defendants filed their answer on February
3, 2022.
On or about April 26, 2023, Plaintiff
served the following discovery: (1) Requests for Admission (Set One) on
Defendant Jasmine Priscilla Ruiz; (2) Requests for Admission (Set One) on
Defendant Ilario Ruiz; (3) Form Interrogatories (Set Two) to Defendant Jasmine
Priscilla Ruiz; and (4) Form Interrogatories (Set Two) to Defendant Ilario
Ruiz.
Defendants did not serve timely responses
or objections. On August 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed the four discovery motions
that are currently pending: two requests for orders deeming admitted the
matters covered by the requests for admission and two requests to compel
interrogatory responses. Plaintiff requests sanctions in all four motions.
On or about August 15, 2023, Defendants
served responses.
On August 24, Defendants served a combined
opposition to the four motions. On August 29, Plaintiff filed a combined reply.
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, 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., § 2030.290,
subd. (a).)
“[T]he 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd.
(c).)
Within 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).)
“[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of
its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].” (Sinaiko Healthcare
Consulting, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 407.) Even if the untimely
response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues
raised by a motion to compel responses … the trial court retains the authority
to hear the motion.”¿ (Id. at pp.
408-409.)¿
This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to
respond to discovery in a timely fashion.”¿ (Id. at p. 408.)¿ If “the propounding party [does not]
take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel
responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose
sanctions.”¿ (Id. at p. 409.)
“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of
a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to
the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the
requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)
Discussion
Motions to Deem Admitted
Defendants served responses to
the Requests for Admission on August 15, 2023, well after the statutory
deadline for a response, a few days after Plaintiff filed the instant motions,
but before the hearing date. (Crowley Decl., Ex. A.) The Court has reviewed the
responses and finds that they are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil
Procedure section 2033.220. Accordingly, the motion to deem admitted the truth of
the matters specified in the requests for admission is denied. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Motions to Compel Interrogatory Responses
Defendants also served responses
to the Form Interrogatories on August 15, 2023, well after the statutory
deadline for a response, a few days after Plaintiff filed the instant motions,
but before the hearing date. (Crowley Decl., Ex. A.) The Court has reviewed the
responses and finds that the motion to compel is moot.
When Defendants missed the
statutory deadline to serve responses, they waived their objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2030.290, subd. (a).) Plaintiff moved to compel responses to the
interrogatories without objections. Accordingly, to make the motions moot,
Defendant were required to serve responses without objections.
Defendants did so. (Crowley
Decl., Ex. A.) If Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ responses are incomplete
or evasive, or if Plaintiff contends that the exercise of the option to produce
documents under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 is unwarranted or
inadequate, Plaintiff may file a motion to compel further responses under section
2030.300. (See also Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in Personal
Injury Hub Courts, ¶ 9(E), at p. 7 [“PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to
Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged
in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).”].)
Sanctions
The Court awards monetary sanctions to Plaintiff on all four
motions. Defendants’ failure to respond was not substantially justified, and under
the facts in the record the imposition of sanctions would not be unjust. Given
the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses,
and the economies of scale associated with filing four parallel motions that
are set for hearing on the same date, the Court awards sanctions on each motion
in the amount of $555, calculated as 1.0 hours of time for each motion,
multiplied by counsel’s billable rate of $495 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee
for each motion.
Conclusion
The Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s two requests to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified
in the requests for admission.
The Court
DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s two requests to compel initial responses to form
interrogatories.
The Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions.
Defendant Jasmine
Priscilla Ruiz and counsel of record Chavez Legal Group are ordered, jointly
and severally, to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $1,100 ($555 per
motion, multiplied by two motions) within 30 days of notice of this order.
In addition, Defendant
Ilario Ruiz and counsel of record Chavez Legal Group are ordered, jointly and
severally, to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $1,100 ($555 per motion,
multiplied by two motions) within 30 days of notice of this order.
Plaintiff is
ordered to give notice.