Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV32012, Date: 2024-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV32012, Date: 2024-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32012 Hearing Date: December 19, 2024 Dept: 29

Naber v. Markaryan
22STCV32012
Motion to Compel Defendant Granada Hookah Lounge to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Defendant Granada Hookah Lounge to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Defendant Granada Hookah Lounge to Respond to Request for Production (Set One)
Motion to Deem Defendant Granada Hookah Lounge to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Request for Admissions (Set One).

Tentative

The motions are granted.

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

Background

On September 30, 2022, Alexis Naber (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Zhores Markaryan (“Markaryan”) and Granada Hookah Lounge (“GHL”) for intentional tort and general negligence causes of action arising out of an altercation on February 16, 2022.

On July 31 2023, default was entered against both Defendants. On January 25, 2024, a stipulation to vacate the default as to GHL was filed. On April 2, 2024, a stipulation to vacate the default as to Markaryan was filed.

On January 30, 2024, GHL filed an answer.

On May 6, 2024, Markaryan filed an answer.

On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed these four discovery motions: (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Granada Hookah Lounge to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One); (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Granada Hookah Lounge to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One); (3) Motion to Compel Defendant Granada Hookah Lounge to Respond to Request for Production (Set One); and (4) Motion to Deem Defendant Granada Hookah Lounge to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Request for Admissions (Set One).

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 June 17, 2024, Plaintiff served GHL with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production, and Request for Admissions. (Jensen Decls., ¶ 2.) GHL did not serve responses to the propounded discovery. (Id., ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff need show nothing more.

The Court GRANTS the motions to compel Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production.

The Court DEEMS GHL to have admitted the matters asserted in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions true.

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, GHL has not opposed the motion, and thus the requests for sanctions in the motions relating to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production 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).) Accordingly, the request for sanctions in the motion relating to requests for admission is granted.

The Court sets sanctions in the amount of $735, based on 1.5 hours of attorney time multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $450 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (See Jensen Decl., ¶ 9.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the Motions to Compel Defendant Granada Hookah Lounge to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One).

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

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

The Court ORDERS Defendant Granada Hookah Lounge to serve written, verified, 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 DEEMS Defendant Granada Hookah Lounge TO HAVE ADMITTED the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (Set One).

The Court DENIES the requests for sanctions in the motions relating to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production.

The Court GRANTS IN PART the request for sanctions in the motion relating to requests for admission.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Granada Hookah Lounge and Mgdesyan Law Firm, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Plaintiff (through counsel) in the amount of $735.00 within 30 days of notice.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.