Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV21656, Date: 2025-05-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21656    Hearing Date: May 27, 2025    Dept: 29

Padilla v. Ace Relocation Systems Inc. of Washington
22STCV21656
Motion to Compel Defendant Phillip Smith Jr. to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) Propounded by Plaintiff Ma Ernestina Galvan Padilla.
Motion to Compel Defendant Phillip Smith Jr. to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One) Propounded by Plaintiff Ma Ernestina Galvan Padilla.
Motion for Order Deeming Defendant Phillip Smith Jr. to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One) Propounded by Plaintiff Ma Ernestina Galvan Padilla.

Tentative

The motions are granted.

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

Background

Two cases, now consolidated, were filed arising out of a vehicle accident on July 15, 2020, at or near the intersection of McBean Parkway and Avenida Navarre in Santa Clarita.

In the first filed case, Case No. 22STCV21656, on July 5, 2022, Ma Ernestina Galvan Padilla filed a complaint against Ace Relocation Systems, Inc. of Washington (“Ace”), Atlas Van Lines, Inc. (“Atlas”), Phillip Jr Smith, and Does 1 through 50 for negligence.

On October 3, 2022, Ace Relocation Systems, Inc. of Washington, Atlas Van Lines, Inc., and Phillip Smith Jr. (erroneously sued as Phillip Jr Smith) (“Smith”) filed an answer.

In the second filed case, Case No. 22STCV22673, on July 13, 2022, Idalia Cristina De La Pena filed a complaint against Ace, Atlas, Smith, and Does 1 through 20 for negligence and motor vehicle negligence.

On March 30, 2023, Ace, Atlas, and Smith filed an answer.

On May 8, 2024, the two cases were related.  On July 25, 2024, the two cases were consolidated.

On November 6, 2024, Plaintiff De La Pena dismissed her complaint with prejudice.

Currently before the Court and set for hearing on May 27, 2025, are three discovery motions filed by Plaintiff Ma Ernestina Galvan Padilla (“Plaintiff”): (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Phillip Smith Jr. (“Defendant”) to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One); (2) Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One); and (3) Motion for Order Deeming Defendant to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One).  In all three motions, Plaintiff 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 September 11, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One). (Omidfar Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A-B.)  Defendant requested, and Plaintiff agreed to, four extensions of time to respond.  (Id., ¶¶ 4-7.)  Defendant still never responded to the discovery requests.  (Id. ¶ 9.)

Plaintiff properly propounded discovery on Defendant, and Defendant did not respond.  Plaintiff need not show anything more.  The motions are granted.

As for 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, Defendant has not opposed the motion, and so the requests for sanctions on the motions to compel are denied.

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 failure of Defendant and his attorneys to serve timely responses to the requests for admission necessitated this motion.  The request for sanctions on this motion is granted in part.

The Court sets sanctions in the amount of $720, based on three hours of attorney time multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $240 per hour for this motion.  (See Omidfar Decl., ¶ 10.)  (Counsel also references a filing fee of $1, but that appears to be an error, as the Court is not aware of any $1 filing fee for this motion.) 

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed a single motion for what should have been two separate motions as to the motions to compel form interrogatories and special interrogatories. Combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to pay an additional filing fee.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the discovery motions filed by Plaintiff.

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel Defendant to respond to form interrogatories and special interrogatories.

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

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

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel Defendant to respond to requests for production.

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

The Court GRANTS the motion for a deemed-admitted order.

The Court ORDERS that Defendant Phillip Smith Jr. is DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED THE TRUTH of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (Set One).

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions in connection with the motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with the motion for a deemed-admitted order.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Phillip Smith Jr. and his attorney of record Vincent S. Green, Esq., jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $720 to Plaintiff (through counsel) within 30 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay to the Clerk of the Court an additional filing fee of $60 and to file proof of payment with the Court by June 26, 2025.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.