Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV39674, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV39674, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39674 Hearing Date: January 6, 2025 Dept: 29

Rejaeian v. Ralphs
21STCV39674
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set Two)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Supplemental 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 denied in part and granted in part.

Background

On October 27, 2021, Reza Mohammad Rejaeian (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Ralphs; The Kroger Co.; Ralphs Grocery Company; Kroger; Owners of Property located at 22915 Victory Blvd., West Hills, CA 91307; and Does 1 through 50, asserting a cause of action for general negligence arising out of injuries that Plaintiff alleges he sustained on October 30, 2019.

On May 4, 2023, Ralphs Grocery Company dba Ralphs (erroneously sued as Ralphs, The Kroger Co., Ralphs Grocery Company, and Kroger) (“Defendant”) filed an answer.

On November 7, 2024, Defendant filed these four motions: (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set Two); (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One); (3) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Supplemental Requests for Production (Set One); and (4) Motion for Order Deeming Plaintiff to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One). Defendant seeks sanctions in each motion.

No opposition has been filed.

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

On September 11, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set Two), Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One), Supplemental Requests for Production (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One). (Feffer Decls., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff did not respond to the discovery. (Id., ¶ 7.)

Defendant need show nothing more.

The motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to the form interrogatories, supplemental interrogatories, and supplemental requests for production are granted.

The motion for an order deeming Plaintiff to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in requests for admission is granted.

The requests for sanctions in connection with the form interrogatories, supplemental interrogatories, and requests for production are denied. In the chapters of the Civil Discovery Act governing interrogatories and requests for production, the Legislature has authorized sanctions in the context of a motion to compel initial responses “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” the motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) & 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, no opposition has been filed.

The request for sanctions in connection with the requests for admission is granted. The chapter in the Civil Discovery Act governing requests for admission provides for a “mandatory” imposition of sanctions “on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion [for a deemed-admitted order].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to serve a timely response has necessitated this motion.

The Court sets sanctions in the amount of $510, calculated based on two hours of attorney time, multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $225 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (See Feffer Decl., ¶ 10.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Reza Mohammad Rejaeian respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set Two) within 10 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Reza Mohammad Rejaeian respond to Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Reza Mohammad Rejaeian respond to Defendant’s Supplemental Requests for Production (Set One) within 10 days of notice.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for a deemed-admitted order.

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

The Court DENIES Defendant’s requests for sanctions on the motions to compel.

The Court GRANTS in part Defendant’s request for sanction on the motion for a deemed-admitted order.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Reza Mohammad Rejaeian and the Law Offices of Fred Hanassab, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $510 to Defendant (through counsel) within 30 days of notice.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.