Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV33327, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV33327 Hearing Date: February 14, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Compel Defendant Jong Suk Choi’s Responses to
Form Interrogatories (Set No. One) and Requests for Production of Documents
(Set No. One), and Motion to Deem the Truth of the Matters Asserted in Request
for Admissions (Set No. 1) filed by Plaintiff Kelli Lee Miller.
Tentative
The motions to compel are denied as
moot. The motion for a deemed-admitted
order is denied.
The requests for sanctions are granted in part.
Background
On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff Kelli
Lee Miller (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against Defendants Jong Suk Choi,
Nam Joong Yoon, and Does 1 to 20, for general negligence and motor vehicle
negligence causes of action arising from
an automobile accident occurring on October 18, 2020. Defendant Yoon filed an answer in November
2022, and Defendant Choi filed an answer in December 2022.
On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff served
Defendant Choi (“Defendant”) with Form
Interrogatories (Set No. One), Requests for Production of Documents (Set No.
One), and Request for Admissions (Set No. One). (Pecora Decls., ¶ 5.) Defendant provided unverified responses. (Id., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff followed up with Defendant about
obtaining the verifications, but as of the date of filing these motions no
verification had been provided. (Id.,
¶¶ 7-8.)
On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed
these motions to compel and for a deemed-admitted order. On December 8, 2023, Defendant provided the
missing verifications. (Wilkins Decls.,
¶ 10.) Defendant filed oppositions on February 1, 2024.
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.” (Id.,
§ 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).)
Discussion
On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff served
Defendant Jong Suk Choi (“Defendant”) with Form
Interrogatories (Set No. One), Requests for Production of Documents (Set No.
One), and Request for Admissions (Set No. One). (Pecora Decls., ¶ 5.)
Defendant provided responses without verification on April 10, 2023. (Id.,
¶ 6.)
Unverified responses are the
equivalent of no response at all.
Only after these motions were filed did Defendant provide
verifications to the discovery responses.
(Wilkins Decls., ¶ 10.)
Prior to
the hearing, Defendant provided a response to the requests for admission that
is in substantial compliance with Code
of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion for a deemed-admitted order is
DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses are DENIED
as MOOT.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in
part.
In the motion for a deemed-admitted order, no request
for sanctions appears in the notice of motion and motion. Accordingly, no sanctions are awarded for
this motion.
In the motion to compel, Plaintiff does request
sanctions. In light of the straightforward
nature of a discovery motion when no response is provided, and the economies of
scale associated with preparing multiple discovery motions, Plaintiff is
awarded as sanctions on this motion in the amount of $736.65, calculated based
on 1.5 hours of attorney time, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $450 per
hour, plus the filing fee of $61.65.
(See Pecora Decl., ¶ 12.) Defendant’s
counsel has not shown that 12 hours of combined attorney time for these two straightforward
motions by an attorney charging $450 per hour (6 hours per motion) is
reasonable.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s
motion for a deemed-admitted order is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses are DENIED
as MOOT.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is
GRANTED in part.
Defendant and counsel of record
Wilkins, Drolshagen & Czeshinski, LLP, are ordered, jointly and severally,
to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Plaintiff in the
amount of $736.65 within 30 days of notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.