Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV00886, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV00886, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00886 Hearing Date: June 27, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)
Motion for Order Deeming Plaintiff to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One)

Tentative

The motions are granted.

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

Background

On January 10, 2022, Youseff Helmy (“Plaintiff”), Yuliia Martynenko, and Amr Hassan filed a complaint against Adam Schwartz (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident occurring on December 8, 2021, at or near the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and Stoner Avenue in Los Angeles.

On January 19, 2024, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint as well as a cross-complaint against Plaintiff and Roes 1 through 15.

Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery on January 18, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One). (Bakshandeh Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff requested and received two extensions of time but has still failed to respond to the discovery. (Id., ¶¶ 3-6.)

On May 29, 2024, Defendant filed these four motions: (1) motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One); (2) motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to, Special Interrogatories (Set One); (3) motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Requests for Production (Set One); and (4) motion for an order deeming Plaintiff to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set One). In each motion, Defendant also seeks sanctions.

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 January 18, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One). (Bakshandeh Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff has not responded to these discovery requests. (Id., ¶ 6.)

Defendant need not show anything more. The motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to the form interrogatories, the special interrogatories, and the requests for production are GRANTED. The motion for an order deeming Plaintiff to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission is GRANTED.

The requests for sanctions in connection with the motions to compel responses to the interrogatories and requests for production are DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” but does not independently authorize sanctions for such conduct.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides for the imposition of sanctions against any party or attorney who engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title [the Civil Discovery Act].” This section, itself, does not independently authorize sanctions.

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, however, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. Accordingly, no sanctions are authorized.

The request for sanctions in connection with the motion for a deemed-admitted order 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).)

In light of the economies of scale associated with preparing multiple discovery motions, and the reasonably straightforward nature of a motion for a deemed-admitted order, the Court sets sanctions in the amount of $660, based on two hours of attorney time, multiplied by a reasonable rate of $300 per hour for work of this nature, plus a $60 filing fee. (See Bakshandeh Decl., ¶ 8.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the Motions to Compel Plaintiff Youseff Helmy to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 15 days of notice of this order.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 15 days of notice of this order.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Requests for Production (Set One) within 15 days of notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS the Motion for an Order Deeming Plaintiff to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Request for Admissions (Set One).

The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff is Deemed to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Defendant’s Request for Admissions (Set One).

The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Youseff Helmy and his attorney of record, Vladimir Shagramanov and SP Law Group, APC, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $660 to Defendant within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.