Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 23STCV21490, Date: 2024-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV21490, Date: 2024-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV21490 Hearing Date: September 9, 2024 Dept: 29

Alpisa v. Pena
23STCV21490
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)
Defendants’ Motion for Order Deeming Plaintiff to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One).

Tentative

The motions to compel are granted.

The motion for a deemed-admitted order is denied.

The requests for sanctions are denied in part and granted in part.

Background

On September 7, 2023, Alexis Erica Alpisa (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action against Omar Mario Pena, Jr., Antonia Contreras (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 20 for negligence arising out of an automobile accident occurring on September 9, 2021.

On May 9, 2024, Defendants filed an answer.

On August 2, 2024, Defendants filed motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production as well as a motion for a deemed-admitted order in relation to a Request for Admission.

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for a deemed-admitted order (but not the other motions) on August 6. Defendants filed a reply on August 30.

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 May 8, 2024, Defendants served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Demand for Production, and Requests for Admission. (Bekaryan Decls., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff did not serve responses. (Id., ¶ 9.)

Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 6 and attached to counsel’s declaration a copy of Plaintiff’s response to the Requests for Admission. (Bral Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. 1.) Plaintiff’s response is objection free, verified, and in substantial compliance under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c).

Therefore, the motion to deem the truth of Requests for Admissions is DENIED.

As for the motions to compel, however, Defendants have shown that they propounded discovery and Plaintiff did not respond. Defendants need show nothing more. The motions to compel are GRANTED.

The requests for sanctions in connection with the three motions to compel responses to the interrogatories and requests for production are DENIED. The applicable statutes authorize sanctions “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, Plaintiff did not oppose the motions, and so no sanctions are authorized.

The request for sanctions in connection with the motion for a deemed-admitted order 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” the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to serve time responses necessitated Defendants’ motion. The Court sets sanctions in the requested amount of $561.65 based on two hours of attorney work, multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $250 per hour, plus a $61.65 filing fee. (Bekaryan Decl., ¶ 10.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Alexis Erica Alpisa to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One). Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide code compliant, objection free, verified responses within 20 days of notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Alexis Erica Alpisa to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One). Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide code compliant, objection free, verified responses within 20 days of notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Alexis Erica Alpisa to Respond to Demand for Production of Documents (Set One). Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide code compliant, objection free, verified responses within 20 days of notice of this order.

The Court DENIES the Motion for an order deeming Plaintiff to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Request for Admissions (Set One).

Plaintiff Alexis Erica Alpisa and her attorney of record, Bral & Associates, jointly and severally, are ORDERED to pay $561.50 in sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Defendants within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.