Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV08936, Date: 2024-08-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08936    Hearing Date: August 27, 2024    Dept: 29

Balderas v. Aguayo
23STCV08936
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)
Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Deeming Defendant to Have Admitted as True the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One).

Tentative

The motion to compel responses to the form interrogatories is denied without prejudice.

The motions to compel responses to the special interrogatories and the requests for production are granted.  The requests for sanctions in these motions are denied.

The motion for a deemed admitted order is granted.  The request for sanctions in this motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Background

On April 21, 2023, Guadalupe Balderas (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Juan Aguayo (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 20 for negligence arising out of an automobile accident occurring on September 14, 2022.

On April 12, 2024, Defendant filed an answer.  Defendant is represented by Benjamin Zeng of the Law Office of Benjamin Zeng.

On July 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed four motions: (1) Motions to Compel Defendant to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One); (2) Motions to Compel Defendant to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One); (3) Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One); and (4) Motion for Order Deeming Defendant to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One).

No opposition to any of these motions 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

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is denied without prejudice.  The proof of service attached to the motion shows service to other lawyers, not Defendant’s counsel of record.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is granted.  The motion was served on Defendant’s counsel of record.  Plaintiff has presented evidence that the discovery was served on Defendant’s counsel of record on April 12, 2024, and no response was received.  (Yadegari Decl., ¶¶ 2-3 & Exh. 1.)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to respond to Requests for Production (Set One) is granted.  The motion was served on Defendant’s counsel of record.  Plaintiff has presented evidence that the discovery was served on Defendant’s counsel of record on April 12, 2024, and no response was received.  (Yadegari Decl., ¶¶ 2-3 & Exh. 1.)

Plaintiff’s motion for an order deeming Defendant to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set One) is granted.  The motion was served on Defendant’s counsel of record.  Plaintiff has presented evidence that the discovery was served on Defendant’s counsel of record on April 12, 2024, and no response was received.  (Yadegari Decl., ¶¶ 2-3 & Exh. 1.)

Sanctions

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions in the motions relating 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).)  Here, Defendant did not oppose the motion. 

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the motion relating to the requests for admission is granted.  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).)

In light of the reasonably straightforward nature of a motion for a deemed-admitted order, the Court sets sanctions in the amount of $750, based on two hours of attorney time, multiplied by a reasonable rate of $375 per hour for work of this nature. (See Yadegari Decl., ¶ 5.)

Conclusion

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One).

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One).

The Court ORDERS Defendant to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, within 15 days of notice.

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (Set One).

The Court ORDERS Defendant to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, within 15 days of notice.

The Court GRANTS the Motion for a deemed admitted order.

The Court ORDERS that Defendant is deemed to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions (Set One).

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

The Court ORDERS Defendant and his attorney of record, Benjamin Zeng, jointly and severally, to pay $750 in sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Plaintiff within 30 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s other requests for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.