Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV32978, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32978    Hearing Date: January 24, 2024    Dept: 29

Tentative

The Court DENIES AS MOOT Austin Forsyth’s Motion to Compel Janet Dorine Hart to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Form Interrogatories (Set One).

The Court DENIES AS MOOT Forsyth’s Motion to Compel Hart to Respond to Request for Production of Documents (Set One).

The Court DENIES Forsyth’s Motion for an Order Deeming the Truth of All Matters Specified in Request for Admissions (Set One).

The Court GRANTS in part Forsyth’s request for sanctions.

Background

This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident on June 19, 2022, hear the intersection of La Cienega and Wilshire Boulevards in Beverly Hills, California.  On October 7, 2022, Plaintiffs Austin Forsyth (“Forsyth”) and Karmen Haley (“Haley”) filed the Complaint against Defendant Janet Dorine Hart (“Hart”) and Does 1 through 10, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On November 20, 2022, Hart filed her Answer to the Complaint and also a Cross-Complaint against Forsyth and Roes 1 through 20.

Forsyth filed his Answer to the Cross-Complaint on February 27, 2023.

On September 11, 2023, Forsyth served Hart with discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), and Requests for Admissions (Set One).  (Chalamidas Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A-B.)

Hart requested, and received, a three-week extension of time to respond to the discovery.  (Id., ¶ 3.)  Even with the extension, Hart had not served any responses as of the time of the filing of these motions.  (Id., ¶ 5.) 

On November 16, 2023, Forsyth filed the three motions that are before the Court: to compel Hart to respond to interrogatories, to compel Hart to respond to requests for production, and for an order deeming admitted the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission.  Forsyth seeks monetary sanctions in connection with each motion.

Hart filed her oppositions on January 11.  Forsyth filed a combined reply on January 17.

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. (Id., § 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 matters contained 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).)

“[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].”  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 407.)  Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses … the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.”¿ (Id. at pp. 408-409.)¿ This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.”¿ (Id. at p. 408.)¿ If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.”¿ (Id. at p. 409.) “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

 "Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).)

Discussion

Forsyth served Hart with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), and Requests for Admissions (Set One) on September 11, 2023.  (Chalamidas Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A-B.)  As of the filing of these motions on November 16, Hart had not responded.  (Id., ¶ 5.) 

Hart’s counsel declares that the failure to serve Hart’s responses to the discovery was the result of a calendaring error.  (Wilson Decls., ¶¶ 5-8.)  Hart served unverified responses to the discovery requests, without objection, on December 7 and served the verifications on December 8.  (Id., Exhs. D-F.)

Hart has now served initial responses to the interrogatories and the requests for production.  Accordingly, the Court DENIES as moot Forsyth’s motions to compel such responses.

Hart served, prior to the hearing, responses to the requests for admission that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.  Accordingly, the Court DENIES Forsyth’s motion for an order deeming admitted as true the matters specified in the requests for admission.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); St. Mary, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at pp. 778-780.)

The Court GRANTS in part Forsyth’s requests for sanctions.  The Court notes that Forsyth did not request sanctions in his request for a deemed admitted order.  As to the other two motions, monetary sanctions are awarded.  Hart did not serve responses to the discovery requests within the time permitted by the Civil Discovery Act, even as extended by agreement of counsel.  Hart’s failure to serve responses in a timely fashion was not substantially justified, and it would not be unjust, under these circumstances, to impose a monetary sanction.  Given the relatively straightforward nature of motions to compel initial responses, and the economies of scale associated with filing multiple discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions on each motion in the amount of $476.25, calculated based on 2.25 hours of attorney work, multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $185.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee.  (See Chalamidas Decls., ¶ 7.)

Conclusion

The Court DENIES AS MOOT Forsyth’s Motion to Compel Hart to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Form Interrogatories (Set One).

The Court DENIES AS MOOT Forsyth’s Motion to Compel Hart to Respond to Request for Production of Documents (Set One).

The Court DENIES Forsyth’s Motion for an Order Deeming the Truth of All Matters Specified in Request for Admissions (Set One).

The Court GRANTS in part Forsyth’s request for sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Hart and counsel of record Stratman & Williams-Abrego, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Forsyth under the Civil Discovery Act in the total amount of $952.50 ($476.25 per motion, multiplied by two motions) within 30 days of notice of this ruling.

The Court ORDERS moving party to give notice.