Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV22618, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV22618, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22618 Hearing Date: September 10, 2024 Dept: 29

Burstyn v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.
22STCV22618
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 Request 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 denied in part and granted in part.

Background

On July 13, 2022, Carmit Burstyn (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Bed Bath & Beyond and Does 1 through 30 for general negligence and premises liability arising out of an incident on October 30, 2021, in which Plaintiff was allegedly struck by a metal rod.

On September 16, 2022, Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (“BBB”) filed an answer. On May 30, 2023, BBB filed notice of stay of proceedings due to bankruptcy.

On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Studio City East 93K, LLC (“Studio”) as Doe 1. On March 8, 2024, Studio filed an answer and a cross-complaint against BBB, Bed ‘N Bath O Studio City, Inc, and Roes 1 through 50.

On August 14, 2024, Studio filed these four motions: motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, and a motion for a deemed-admitted order as to the Requests for Admission.

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 May 7, 2024, Studio served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Demand for Production, and Requests for Admission. (Arquell Decls., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff has not served responses to the discovery. (Id., ¶ 8.)

Studio need show nothing more.

Studio’s motions to compel Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Request for Production are GRANTED.

Studio’s motion for a deemed admitted order as to 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.

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).) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and therefore no sanctions are authorized.

The request for sanctions in connection with the motion for a deemed-admitted order is GRANTED IN PART. 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 sets sanctions in the amount of $520, based on two hours of attorney time multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $230 per hour plus a $60 filing fee. (See Arquell Decl., ¶ 11.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Carmit Burstyn to serve verified, code complaint responses to Studio’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), without objection, within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Carmit Burstyn to serve verified, code complaint responses to Studio’s Special Interrogatories (Set One), without objection, within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Carmit Burstyn to serve verified, code complaint responses to Studio’s Requests for Production (Set One), without objection, within 15 days of notice.

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

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

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Carmit Burstyn and attorney of record, DuFour Law, P.C., jointly and severally, to pay $520 in sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Studio within 30 days of notice.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.