Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV41498, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41498    Hearing Date: February 28, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Elm Terrace Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on November 10, 2021 against Defendants Snatch Media, Inc. dba Dealer Preroll (“Snatch Media”) and Truman Hedding (“Hedding”).[1] 

On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One; Requests for Production of Documents and Things, Set One; and Requests for Admissions, Set One on Hedding. (Rothman Decls., ¶ 2, Exs. A.) The foregoing discovery served by Plaintiff on Hedding is referred to collectively herein as the “Discovery Requests.” 

Plaintiff indicates that Hedding did not respond by August 11, 2022 when responses to the Discovery Requests were due, and did not request an extension. (Rothman Decls., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Hedding on August 15, 2022 providing an extension to respond to August 19th, without objection. (Ibid.) However, nothing was or has been received by Plaintiff’s counsel. (Ibid.)

On January 27, 2023, Plaintiff participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). The Court’s January 27, 2023 minute order provides, inter alia, “[t]he Informal Discovery Conference is held. There is no appearance by or for the defendant. Plaintiff has fulfilled the IDC requirement and plaintiff can proceed with the motions to compel.”

Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Hedding to provide verified responses to the Discovery Requests.[2] Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. The motions are unopposed.

Discussion

If a party to whom interrogatories or an inspection demand were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; 2031.300.) Monetary sanctions are mandatory unless the court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).)

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

The Court shall make this order, “unless it 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).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

The Court finds that the evidence demonstrates that Hedding did not timely serve responses to the Discovery Requests at issue. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling a response to the Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents and Things, Set One and an order deeming the matters in the Requests for Admissions, Set One admitted.[3]  

Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions in connection with each motion. Plaintiff seeks

$1,800 in sanctions in connection with the motion to compel form interrogatory responses, $450 in sanctions in connection with the motion to compel request for production responses, and $450 in sanctions in connection with the motion to compel request for admission responses. (Rothman Decls., ¶ 5.) The Court finds that the requested sanctions in the total amount of $2,700 is reasonable.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions are granted.

The Court orders that the matters in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One to Hedding are deemed admitted.

The Court orders Hedding to serve complete verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One within 30 days of notice of this order. The Court orders Hedding to serve complete verified responses, without objections, and to produce responsive documents to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents and Things, Set One within 30 days of notice of this order.

The Court further orders Hedding to pay $2,700.00 to Plaintiff within 30 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this order.

DATED:  February 28, 2023                          ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court