Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 24STCV03222, Date: 2024-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 24STCV03222, Date: 2024-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03222 Hearing Date: October 28, 2024 Dept: 29

Segovia v. Ibragimova
24STCV03222
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Michael Shaffrey to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Michael Shaffrey to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Michael Shaffrey to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion for an Order Deeming Plaintiff Michael Shaffrey 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 granted.

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

Background

Four related cases arise out of an automobile accident on February 12, 2022.

In this matter (Case No. 24STCV03222), on February 7, 2024, Cesar Segovia and Michael Shaffrey (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint asserting causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, and vicarious liability against Nazila Ibragimova (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 100.

On July 26, 2024, Defendant filed an answer.

On September 16, 2024, Defendant these four discovery motions: (1) to compel Plaintiff to respond to Form Interrogatories; (2) to compel Plaintiff to respond to Special Interrogatories; (3) to compel Plaintiff to respond to Requests for Production; and (4) for an order deeming Plaintiff to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in 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., § 2023.020, subd. (a).)

Discussion

On July 17, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission. (Bakshandeh Decls., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff did not respond. (Id., ¶ 6.)

Defendant need not show anything more.

The Court GRANTS the motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production.

The Court GRANTS the motion for a deemed-admitted order as to the Requests for Admission.

The requests for sanctions on the motions to compel are denied. In the chapters of the Civil Discovery Act governing interrogatories and requests for production, the Legislature has authorized sanctions in the context of a motion to compel initial responses “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 has not opposed the motion.

The request for sanctions on 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 this motion [for a deemed-admitted order].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) The Court finds that the failure of Plaintiff and counsel to serve a timely response to the requests for admission necessitated this motion.

Given the relatively straightforward nature of this motion, the Court sets sanctions in the amount of $660, based on two hours of attorney work multiplied by a reasonable billing rate for work of this nature of $300 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (See Bakshandeh Decls., ¶ 8.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the Motions to Compel Plaintiff Michael Shaffrey to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One).

The Court GRANTS the Motion for an Order Deeming Plaintiff Michael Shaffrey to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Request for Admissions (Set One).

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Michael Shaffrey to provide written, code compliant, verified responses, without objection to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Michael Shaffrey to provide written, code compliant, verified responses, without objection to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Michael Shaffrey to provide written, code compliant, verified responses, without objection to Defendant’s Requests for Production (Set One) within 15 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff Michael Shaffrey is DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED the truth of the matters specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admission (Set One).

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Michael Shaffrey and his attorney of record, Andy Basseri, Esq., jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $660 to Defendant Nazila Ibragimova (through counsel) within 30 days of notice.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.