Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV25159, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25159    Hearing Date: November 7, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff San Saba, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on October 16, 2023 against a number of Defendants, including Julian Tinoco Lopez (“Lopez”). On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) injury to real property, and (3) property damage.

Plaintiff now moves for (1) an order compelling Lopez to provide responses, without objection, and produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, propounded by Plaintiff on Lopez, and for the imposition of monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,895.00; (2) an order compelling Lopez to provide responses, without objection, in response to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories-General, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, propounded by Plaintiff on Lopez, and for the imposition of monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,895.00; and (3) an order deeming all requests for admission served on Lopez admitted, and for the imposition of monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,895.00. The motions are unopposed.

Discussion

A.    Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010)…” Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (b), “[t]he party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (b), “[t]he party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), “[t]he 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.”

B.    Motions to Compel and Motion to Have Matters in Requests for Admission Set One, Deemed Admitted

In his declarations in support of the instant motions, Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that on

February 8, 2024, Plaintiff served Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Form Interrogatories-General, Set One, and Requests for Admission, Set One on Lopez. (Zaki Decls., ¶ 2, Exs. A.)

            Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[o]n April 25, 2024, I called Defendant in an attempt to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff’s discovery requests. During the call, after I asked Defendant for the status of responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, Defendant claimed he did not receive any discovery requests and told me to contact his lawyer. When I asked for his lawyer’s name and contact information, Defendant refused to provide me with any information and hung up the phone.” (Zaki Decls., ¶ 3.)

            On June 11, 2024, the Court issued an Order regarding Plaintiff’s previous motions to compel responses by Lopez to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, form interrogatories, and to have matters in Plaintiff’s requests for admissions deemed admitted. As discussed in the June 11, 2024 Order, the Court ordered the parties to participate in a meet and confer with the Court in the form of an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). Plaintiff’s counsel states that on June 11, 2024, he “contacted Defendant’s authorized electronic communications agent Marco Corona,” and that “[a]fter some back-and-forth discussion, Mr. Corona advised that Defendant was agreeable to setting the IDC for September 12, 2024, at 11:30 a.m. and my office scheduled the conference accordingly.” (Zaki Decls., ¶¶ 6, 9.)

In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that on July 22, 2024, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set One on Lopez. (Ruttenberg Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. B.)

            On September 12, 2024, an IDC was held in this action. The Court’s September 12, 2024 minute order provides that “Defendant Lopez did not appear at the Informal Discovery Conference Plaintiff has fulfilled its (IDC) requirement and may file a motion to compel.”[1] Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[a]s of October 7, 2024, Plaintiff has received neither responses, nor any form of objection or request for extension from Defendant.” (Zaki Decls., ¶ 11.)

Lopez does not oppose the instant motions and thus does not provide any evidence that Lopez served responses to the subject discovery requests. The Court finds that the evidence demonstrates that Lopez 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 Plaintiff’s

Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Form Interrogatories-General, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One. In addition, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the matters in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One to Lopez admitted.   

C.    Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions in connection with each of the instant motions.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c), cited by Plaintiff, “[e]xcept as provided in subdivision (d), 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 a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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.” In addition, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), cited by Plaintiff, “[t]he 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 a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.”

            Lopez does not oppose the instant motions. Thus, the Court does not find that sanctions are warranted under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c) or Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c) here. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with Plaintiff’s motion to compel Lopez’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. The Court also denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection with Plaintiff’s motion to compel Lopez’s response to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories-General, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One.

Lastly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), “[i]t 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.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in connection with Plaintiff’s motion to have matters in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, deemed admitted.

Plaintiff’s counsel Chris Zaki states that “[m]y billing rate is $375.00 per hour. I spent 1 hour researching, reviewing the file, and preparing the initial motion to deem requests for admission admitted. I spent an additional 1 hour reviewing, preparing for, and attending the June 11, 2024, hearing on this matter. The filing fee for this Motion is $60.00. I am requesting monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $810.00 in attorney’s fees and costs for the previous motion to deem requests for admissions admitted, filed on May 16, 2024.[2]” (Zaki Decl., ¶ 13.) Mr. Zaki also states that “I spent 0.5 hours drafting and filing the Notice of Ruling Re: Motions to Compel and the IDC, communicating with Defendant regarding the purpose and scheduling of the IDC, and communicating with counsel regarding the same, for a total $187.50.” (Zaki Decl., ¶ 14.) Mr. Zaki further states that “I spent 1 hour researching, reviewing the file, and preparing the present motion to deem requests for admission admitted. I anticipate spending an additional 1 hour reviewing, preparing for, and attending the hearing on this matter. The filing fee for this Motion is $60.00.” (Zaki Decl., ¶ 16.) The Court notes that at Mr. Zaki’s billing rate, this totals $810.00 in attorney’s fees and costs.

In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel David Ruttenberg states that “[m]y billing rate is $375.00 per hour…On September 12, 2024, I spent 2.1 hours traveling to and from, and appearing at, the informal discovery conference...” (Ruttenberg Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.) The Court notes that at Mr. Ruttenberg’s billing rate, this totals $787.50 in attorney’s fees. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $2,595.00 is reasonable.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions are granted. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted as to Plaintiff’s motion for an order deeming all requests for admission served on Lopez admitted. Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions in connection with the other two motions is denied.

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

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

The Court further orders Lopez to pay $2,595.00 to Plaintiff within 30 days of notice of this Order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED:  November 7, 2024                         ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court