Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV26081, Date: 2024-06-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV26081    Hearing Date: June 18, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendant Christine Connolly’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)

Defendant Christine Connolly’s Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted as True the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One)
Defendant Patrick Connolly’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant Patrick Connolly’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)

Defendant Patrick Connolly’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)

Defendant Patrick Connolly’s Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted as True the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One)

, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents and Motions to Deem the Truth of the Matters Asserted filed by Defendants Patrick Connolly and Christine Connolly.

Tentative

The motions are granted.

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

Background

On October 25, 2023, Amer Maayta (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Patrick Michael Connolly, Christine Connolly (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 28 for motor vehicle negligence arising out of an accident on September 9, 2023, near the intersection of the 5 Freeway and Citadel Drive in Commerce. On December 15, 2023, Defendants filed an answer.

On January 30, 2024, Defendant Christine Connolly served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One).  (Coverdale Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. 1, A.)  On the same day, Defendant Patrick Connolly served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One). (Id., ¶ 3 & Exhs. 1, A.)  Despite requesting, and receiving, several extensions of time, Plaintiff never served responses.  (Id., ¶ 6.)

On May 6, 2024, Defendants filed these six discovery motions: motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to both Defendants’ form interrogatories, a motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendant Patrick Connolly’s special interrogatories, a motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendant Patrick Connolly’s requests for production, and motions for deemed-admitted orders as to each Defendant’s requests for admission.

No opposition 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., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Discussion

Defendant Christine Connolly served Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One).  (Coverdale Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. 1, A.)  Defendant Patrick Connolly served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One). (Id., ¶ 3 & Exhs. 1, A.)  Plaintiff never served responses.  (Id., ¶ 6.)

Defendants need not show anything more.  Both Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to form interrogatories are granted.  Defendant Patrick Connolly’s motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to special interrogatories and requests for production are granted.  Both Defendants’ motions for deemed-admitted orders as to the requests for admission are granted.

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

The requests for sanctions regarding the interrogatories and requests for production are denied.  Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300 provide for an award of sanctions against any party or attorney “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” a motion o compel, but here Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.

The requests for sanctions regarding the requests for admission are granted.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 provides that an award of sanctions is “mandatory” against any party or attorney “whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  Given the relatively straightforward nature of these motions, as well as the economies of scale associated with preparing multiple discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions for each of the two requests for admission motions at $335 per motion, based on one hour of attorney time, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $275 per hour, plus the filing fee of $60.  (See Coverdale Decls., ¶¶ 7-8.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the six discovery motions.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve verified, written, code compliant responses, without objections, to Defendant Patrick Connolly’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve verified, written, code compliant responses, without objections, to Defendant Christine Connolly’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve verified, written, code compliant responses, without objections, to Defendant Patrick Connolly’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve verified, written, code compliant responses, without objections, to Defendant Patrick Connolly’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) within 15 days of notice.

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

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

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ request for sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff and her counsel of record, Gene Goldsmith, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $335 to Plaintiff Christine Connolly within 30 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff and her counsel of record, Gene Goldsmith, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $335 to Plaintiff Patrick Connolly within 30 days of notice.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.