Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV13294, Date: 2024-08-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV13294 Hearing Date: August 26, 2024 Dept: 29
Cota v. Kelsey
23STCV13294
Defendant’s Motion for Order Deeming Plaintiff to Have Admitted the Truth of
the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission
Defendant’s Motion for Terminating or Issue Sanctions
Tentative
The
Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for an order deeming admitted the matters
specified in Requests for Admission (Set One).
In
connection with that motion, the Court GRANTS in part Defendant’s request for monetary
sanctions
The
Court DENIES in part and GRANTS in part Defendant’s motion for terminating,
issue, or monetary sanctions.
The
Court DENIES the request for terminating or issue sanctions.
The
Court GRANTS the request in the motion for additional monetary sanctions.
Background
On June 9, 2023,
Sergio Cota, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Cadwallade Kelsey
(“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 100 for motor vehicle negligence arising out
of an accident occurring on August 8, 2021.
On December 27,
2023, Defendant filed an answer.
Currently before
the Court and set for hearing on August 26, 2024, are two motions, both filed
on June 5, 2024.
First, Defendant
moves for an order deeming Plaintiff to have admitted the truth of the matters
specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admission (Set One) (the “RFAs”). Defendant served the RFAs on April 9, 2024,
and Plaintiff never responded. (Settles
Decl., ¶¶ 3-4 & Exh. A.) Defendant
also seeks monetary sanctions.
Plaintiff filed
an opposition on July 2, and Defendant filed a reply on July 5.
Second, Defendant
moves for an order of terminating sanctions, issue sanctions, and/or monetary
sanctions. On April 4, 2024, the Court
ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One),
Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One). Plaintiff did not oppose the motion and did
not appear at the hearing. Plaintiff did
not comply with the Court’s order.
(Settles Decl., ¶ 7.)
On June 5, 2024, Defendant
filed a motion for terminating sanctions and a motion to deem request for
admissions as true. No opposition has been filed as to the motion for
terminating sanctions; Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 2 to the motion to
deem the truth of the matter asserted in request for admissions. Defendant
filed a reply on July 5.
The hearings on both
motion were initially scheduled for July 18 and were continued to August 26.
Legal Standard
Deemed
Admitted Order (RFAs)
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).)
Terminating, Issue, and/or Monetary Sanctions
When a plaintiff fails to obey an order compelling answers 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 (commencing with Section
2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to,
that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)
When a plaintiff fails to obey an order compelling responses to
requests for production, “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 (commencing
with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in
addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under
Chapter 7.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.300, subd. (c).)
In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, section 2023.030 provides
for monetary, evidence, issue, and terminating sanctions for any “misuse of the
discovery process,” “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any
particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.” A “misuse of
the discovery process” is defined to include (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; disobeying a court order to provide
discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully, a motion to compel without
substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d)-(h).)
The Civil Discovery Act provides for an escalating and
“incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions
and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Lopez v. Watchtower
Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th
566, 604.) Discovery sanctions should be appropriate to and commensurate
with the misconduct, and they “should not exceed that which is required to
protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Doppes
v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) “If a lesser
sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing
misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until
the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.” (Ibid.; see also,
e.g., Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th
262, 279-280.)
Terminating sanctions should be used sparingly. (Doppes, supra, 174
Cal.App.4th at p. 992; R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999)
75 Cal. App. 4th 486, 496.) “Although in extreme cases a court has the
authority to order a terminating sanction as a first measure, a terminating
sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less
severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly
shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective.” (Lopez, supra, 246
Cal.App.4th at p. 604.) But where discovery violations are
“willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less
severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the
trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.” (Doppes, supra, 174
Cal.App.4th at p. 992.) Repeated and willful violations of discovery orders
that prejudice the opposing party may warrant a terminating sanction. (Creed-21
v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690, 702; Los
Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390; Biles
v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327; Lang v.
Hachman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246; Collisson X Kaplan
v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622.)
The
primary purpose of discovery sanctions is to obtain compliance with the Civil
Discovery Act and the Court’s orders. It is not to punish. (Newland v.
Super. Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 613; Ghanooni v. Super
Shuttle of Los Angeles (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262.) A discovery
sanction should not create a “windfall” for a party or place a party in a
better position than it would have been if the opposing party had simply
complied with its obligations under the Court’s orders and the Civil Discovery
Act. (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164,
1194; see also 2 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure
Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023), ¶¶ 8:2214-2220.)
Discussion
Deemed Admitted Order on Requests for Admission
On April 9, 2024, Defendant served
Plaintiff with the RFAs. (Settles Decl.,
¶ 3; Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not serve a timely response or answer Defendant’s follow-up
correspondence, leading to the filing of this motion. (Id., ¶¶ 4-5, 7 & Exh. B.)
Plaintiff filed an opposition on July
2, attaching responses served on June 30.
(Halpern Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.)
The responses are verified and without objection. (Id., Exh. A.)
The Court finds that Plaintiff has
served responses prior to the hearing that are in substantial compliance with Code
of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. Accordingly,
the motion for a deemed-admitted order is denied. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
In reply, Defendant argues that a
party in Plaintiff’s position must provide a reason the responses were untimely. That is not correct. The reason for untimely responses in part of the
test when a party moves for waiver of objection under Code of Civil Procedure
section 2033.280, subdivision (a), but it is not part of the analysis when the
moving party seeks a deemed-admitted order under subdivisions (b) and (c).
Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions
in this motion is granted, as the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to serve
a timely response to the RFAs necessitated this motion. Given the relatively straightforward nature
of the motion, the Court sets sanctions in the amount of $460, calculated based
on two hours of attorney work, multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate
of $200.00 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee.
(See Settles Decl., ¶ 8.)
Terminating, Issue, and/or Monetary Sanctions
Defendant
seeks terminating sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court
order as well as Plaintiff’s failure to provide responses to written discovery.
Plaintiff
has failed to comply with his obligations under the Civil Discovery Act and has
failed to comply with this Court’s order regarding discovery. This is serious discovery abuse that merits
serious consideration of escalating sanctions.
For terminating sanctions, a party must
present evidence of repeated and willful misuse of the discovery process, as
well as evidence that less severe sanctions have
not (or likely will not) lead to compliance with the discovery rules. Defendants have not, on this record at this
time, made such a showing. There has not been a showing of a history or pattern of
willful abuse or repeated violations that have not been (or cannot be) cured by
lesser sanctions.
For issue sanctions, a lesser showing is
required, but the Court is concerned that any issue sanction (including those
requested in the memorandum) would create a windfall for Defendant and place
Defendant in a better position than Defendant would have been in if Plaintiff had
simply complied with his obligations under the Court’s orders and the Civil
Discovery Act. Accordingly, the request
for issue sanctions is denied as well. (See
Rutledge, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 1194.)
Defendant does not seek evidence sanctions.
Defendant also requests monetary sanctions. This request is granted. Plaintiff’s ongoing misuse of the discovery
process has caused Defendant to incur expenses, including the filing of this
motion, that Defendant should not have had to incur – and that Defendant would not
have had to incur but for Plaintiff’s ongoing discovery misconduct.
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part
Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions. The Court notes the notice of
motion and motion states that Defendant is seeking $800 in monetary
sanctions. (A greater amount is sought
in the memorandum and supporting declaration, but the Court cannot award relief
greater than that identified in the notice of motion and motion.) The Court sets sanctions in the amount of
$800, calculated based on four hours of attorney
work, multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $200.00 per hour. (See Settles Decl., ¶ 8.)
Conclusion
The
Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for an order deeming admitted the matters
specified in Requests for Admission (Set One).
In
connection with that motion, the Court GRANTS in part Defendant’s request for
sanctions and sets sanctions on that motion in the amount of $460.
The
Court DENIES in part and GRANTS in part Defendant’s motion for terminating,
issue, or monetary sanctions.
The
Court DENIES the request for terminating or issue sanctions.
The
Court GRANTS the request for monetary sanctions and sets sanctions in the
amount of $800.
The Court
ORDERS Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the
total amount of $1,260 within 30 days of notice.