Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 23STCV10561, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV10561, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10561 Hearing Date: February 9, 2024 Dept: 29

Motions to Deem the Truth of the Matters Asserted in Request for Admissions (Set One) filed by Plaintiff William Defanti.

Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery filed by Plaintiff William Defanti.

Tentative

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions to Deem the Truth of the Matters Asserted in Request for Admissions (Set One).

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions in the motions for deemed admitted orders.

The Court GRANTS in part, and DENIES as moot in part, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Jolie to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories.

The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s motion to compel Jolie to provide further responses to Requests for Production.

The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s request for sanctions on each of the motions to compel further discovery responses.

Background

This action arises out of a vehicle accident that allegedly occurred on April 14, 2022, near the intersection of Fountain Avenue and Vista Street in West Hollywood, California. On May 11, 2023, Plaintiff William Defanti (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint asserting one cause of action for negligence against Defendants Jolie Limo, LLC; Samuel Ghebreslasie; and Does 1 through 50. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ghebreslasie drove negligently and caused the accident while in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant Jolie Limo.

Defendants Jolie Limo, LLC (“Jolie”) and Samuel Ghebreslasie (”Ghebreslasie”) filed an Answer on June 22, 2023.

There are currently four motions before the Court set for hearing on February 9, 2024.

Two of those two motions relate to requests for admission.

On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff served Requests for Admission (Set One) on Jolie and Requests for Admission (Set One) on Ghebreslasie. (Glassman Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. 1.) Neither defendant served responses. (Id., ¶ 3.)

On December 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed motions for deemed-admitted orders against each of Jolie and Ghebreslasie. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions. The motion as against Jolie was initially set for hearing on January 11, and the motion as against Ghebreslasie was initially set for hearing on February 9.

Jolie filed its opposition (belatedly) on January 9. The Court, for its own scheduling reasons, continued the hearing on the motion as to Jolie to February 9.

Ghebreslasie filed his opposition on January 19. Plaintiff filed his reply on February 2.

There are two other discovery motions on calendar for February 9 as well.

These are Plaintiff’s motions to compel Jolie to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One), filed on October 18, 2023. In each motion, Plaintiff also seeks sanctions. These two motions were initially set for hearing on November 14. Jolie filed a combined opposition on November 2, and Plaintiff filed his replies on November 6. The Court, on its own motion, continued these hearings to January 11, 2024, and then again to February 9, 2024.

(The Court also notes that on October 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed motions to compel Ghebreslasie to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One). Both of these motions were initially set for hearing on November 14. The Court, on its own motion, continued these hearings to November 21. As set forth in the minute order dated November 21, those motions were withdrawn by moving party.)

Legal Standard

Motions for Deemed Admitted Orders

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., § 2023.030, 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).)

Motions to Compel Further Responses

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Id., subd. (c).)

A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration and a separate statement or, in the discretion of the Court, a “concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Id., subd. (b)(1) & (b)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)

“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 a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

“If a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 …. In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 ….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (e).)

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

A motion to compel further responses must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery and must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration and a separate statement or, in the discretion of the Court, a “concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Id., subd. (b)(1)-(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)

“[T]he 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 a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that any person “engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” A “misuse of the discovery process” includes (among other things) failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery; making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to a discovery request; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully, a motion to compel without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d)-(f), (h).)

Discussion

Motions for Deemed Admitted Orders

Plaintiff served Requests for Admission (Set One) on Jolie and on Ghebreslasie on September 21, 2023. (Glassman Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. 1.) After these motion were filed, both Jolie and Ghebreslasie served verified responses. (Olson Decl., Exhs. A & B). These responses are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.

Accordingly, the motions for deemed admitted orders are denied. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

As for sanctions, Plaintiff requests sanctions, but does not specify an amount in the notice of his motion and does not provide any evidence regarding time expended or other expenses incurred in connection with the motions. Accordingly, the requests for sanctions in these motions are denied for lack of notice and evidence.

Motions to Compel Further Responses

Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff moves for further responses to Form Interrogatories 20.3 through 20.8.

Jolie served supplemental verified responses on November 1, 2023. The Court has reviewed these responses and concludes that the Jolie’s responses, as supplemented, to Form Interrogatories Nos. 20.3, 20.4, 20.5, 20.6, and 20.7 are code compliant.

The response, as supplemented, to Form Interrogatory 20.8 is not complete and is therefore not code compliant.

The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Requests for Production

As the Court understands Plaintiff’s position in its reply, Plaintiff recognizes that the written responses, as supplemented, are code compliant.

The motion to compel is DENIED as moot.

Sanctions

Serving belated discovery responses, even those that are complete and code compliant, does not bar the award of sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407-09.) This purpose of this is to provide “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.”¿ (Id. at p. 408.)¿

Here, Plaintiff propounded the discovery at issue on June 23, 2023. (Glassman Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. 1.) After requesting and receiving two extensions of time to respond, Jolie served unverified responses on August 21, 2023, that contained mostly meritless objections, along with some (but far from complete or code compliant) responses to a small minority of the requests. (Glassman Decls., ¶¶ 4-8 & Exhs. 4.) Following further follow up, and Jolie’s requests for further extensions (two of which were granted), Plaintiff reached the reasonable conclusion that a motion to compel was necessary to bring Jolie into compliance with his obligations under the Civil Discovery Act. (See Glassman Decls., ¶¶ 9-16.)

Under these circumstances, monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act are appropriate to compensate Plaintiff for the reasonable expenses he incurred in taking the steps that were unfortunately necessary given Jolie’s refusal to comply with his discovery obligations. Jolie’s conduct was not substantially justified, and it would not be unjust to impose sanctions against Jolie.

Accordingly, the requests for sanctions against Defendant are GRANTED in part.

Sanctions are set in the amount of $961.65 for each motion, calculated as follows: 2.25 hours of attorney time for each motion, multiplied by a reasonable billing rate of $400 per hour for the work required (this is substantially less than the $800 per hour requested by counsel, which is neither substantiated nor necessary for a motion of this nature), plus a $61.65 filing fee. (See Glassman Decls., ¶¶ 14, 16.)

Sanctions are ordered against Jolie only. No request for sanctions against counsel appears in the notices of motion and motions.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions to Deem the Truth of the Matters Asserted in Request for Admissions (Set One).

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions in the motions for deemed admitted orders.

The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel Jolie to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Jolie Limo, LLC to provide a further code compliant, verified, written response to Form Interrogatory 20.8, without objection, within 21 days of notice.

The Court otherwise DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s motion to compel Jolie to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories.

The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s motion to compel Jolie to provide further responses to Requests for Production.

The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s request for sanctions on each of the motions to compel further discovery responses.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Jolie Limo, LLC to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the total amount of $1,923.30 ($961.65 per motion, multiplied by two motions) to Plaintiff within 21 days of notice.

Moving party is to give notice.