Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 23STCV18756, Date: 2024-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV18756, Date: 2024-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18756 Hearing Date: August 28, 2024 Dept: 29

Tillis v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
23STCV18756
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 Request for Production (Set One)
Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Deeming Defendant to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One).

Tentative

The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One).

The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One).

The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One).

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Deeming Defendant to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One).

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions in the motions relating to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production.

The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the motion relating to the requests for admission.

Background

On August 8, 2023, Sheila Tillis (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Ralphs Grocery Co., The Kroger Co., and Donna Alkins, and Does 1 through 25, asserting causes of action for general negligence and premises liability arising out of a slip and fall occurring on September 14, 2021.

On September 25, 2023, Ralphs Grocery Company dba Ralphs (erroneously sued as Ralphs Grocery Co.) (“Defendant”) filed an answer.

On October 26, 2023, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed Donna Alkins and The Kroger Co. without prejudice.

On June 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed four discovery motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One); (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One); (3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Request for Production (Set One); and (4) Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Deeming Defendant to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One). Plaintiff requests sanctions in each motion.

Defendant filed oppositions on July 10, and Plaintiff filed a combined reply on July 16.

The hearings on all four motion were originally scheduled for July 23. As a result of a cyber attack on Los Angeles County Superior Court, the hearings were continued to August 28.

On August 23, Defendant’s counsel filed a declaration stating that the verifications for all of Defendant’s discovery responses were served on July 22, 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.” (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

On February 15, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production, and Requests for Admission. (Ellis Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.) On July 10, 2024, after these motions were filed, Defendant served unverified responses to the discovery requests. (McIntosh Decls., ¶ 4 & Exhs. B.) The verifications were served on July 22, one day before the initial hearing date. (Supp. McIntosh Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. B.)

As Defendant has provided responses to the interrogatories and document requests, the motions to compel Defendant to respond to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production are denied as moot.

As Defendant served verified responses to the requests for admission prior to the hearing, Plaintiff’s motion for a deemed admitted order is denied.

The requests for sanctions in connection with the motions to compel responses to the interrogatories and requests for production are denied. The applicable provisions in the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (c), and section 2031.290, subdivision (c), authorize sanctions against a party or attorney “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” a motion to compel an initial response. Here, the motions are denied as moot, and so Defendant’s opposition was not unsuccessful.

The request for sanctions in connection with the motion for a deemed-admitted order is granted in part. The applicable provision in the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), 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).) Here, Defendant’s failure to serve a timely response to the requests for admission necessitated this motion.

Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion for a deemed admitted order, the Court sets sanctions in the amount of $810, based on three hours of attorney time, multiplied by a reasonable rate of $250 per hour for work of this nature, plus a $60 filing fee. (See Ellis Decl., ¶ 12.)

Conclusion