Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 19STCV09498, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV09498    Hearing Date: April 19, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:      April 19, 2023                                                TRIAL DATE:  October 31, 2023

CASE:                         Samantha Ammari v. California Department of Motor Vehicles, et al.

CASE NO.:                 19STCV09498

MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED ANSWERS WITHOUT OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant State of California

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None.

PROOF OF SERVICE:

·         Correct Address: Uncertain. On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney informing the Court that Attorney Peter M. Cho will be substituting in as counsel. Proof of service of the moving papers is the last page of the motion. The declarant Jasmine Zarate testifies that she served the moving papers on Mr. Cho at the following email address: petermcho@outlook.com. That is the same email address that the parties’ counsels used to meet and confer regarding the discovery requests at issue. However, eCourt shows that Mr. Cho’s email is pcho@czrlaw.com. Therefore, it is uncertain whether the proof of service of the moving papers has the correct address.   

·         16/21 (CCP § 1005(b)): OK. Served via email on November 9, 2022, for a hearing date of April 19, 2023.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            Filed on March 19, 2019, this case arises out of an altercation at a DMV location between Plaintiff and her boyfriend and a DMV employee who allegedly blocked their access to their vehicle, struck Plaintiff multiple times, and had her boyfriend’s vehicle towed. Plaintiff alleges assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest, and civil rights violations.

            Defendant State of California moves to compel verified answers without objections to its Special Interrogatories (Set Two), and Request to Produce Documents (Set Two) and to deem the Requests for Admission (Set Two) admitted. Defendant also moves for an order imposing sanctions of $3,575 against Plaintiff.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant State of California’s motion is GRANTED in part as follows.

Defendant’s request to compel Plaintiff’s verified answers without objections to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified answers without objections to the interrogatories within thirty (30) days of this ruling.

Defendant’s request to compel responses to Defendant’s Request to Produce Documents (Set Two), and to seek to have its Requests for Admission (Set Two) deemed admitted, is DENIED, without prejudice.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.  

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Verified Answers Without Objections to Special Interrogatories and Request to Produce Documents and to Have Requests for Admission Deemed Admitted

            Defendant combined three discovery motions into one and only reserved this date for one motion to compel. Three separate hearing dates should have been reserved for these two motions to compel and one motion to deem requests for admission admitted.

Although Defendant is entitled to a fee waiver as a government entity, combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion, and using a reservation for one motion as the basis for two others, manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. In the future, Defendant is ordered to reserve separate hearing dates for each individual motion.

            The Court will proceed to consider only one motion—the motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two). If Defendant still deems it necessary to file a motion to compel responses to its Request to Produce Documents (Set Two) or to seek to have its Requests for Admission (Set Two) deemed admitted, Defendant must file two separate motions and reserve two separate hearing dates for those.

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, a party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (CCP § 2030.290(a).) For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that must be shown is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response has been served. (Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

Here, the Court finds good cause to grant Defendant’s request to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two). Defense counsel testifies that Defendant propounded the interrogatories on Plaintiff on September 16, 2022. (Declaration of Andrew Adams (“Adams Decl.”), ¶ 9; Exh. 3.) Defendant extended Plantiff’s deadline to serve responses several times. (Adams Decl., ¶¶ 11-12, 14-18.) However, as of the date of the filing of this motion on December 9, 2022, Defendant had yet to receive Plaintiff’s responses to the interrogatories. (Adams Decl., ¶ 6.) There is no opposition or other papers filed providing that Plaintiff has served the responses.  

            Therefore, Defendant’s request to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two is GRANTED. The request to compel responses to its Request to Produce Documents (Set Two), and to seek to have its Requests for Admission (Set Two) deemed admitted, is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED. In light of the impropriety of Defendant’s three-in-one motion and the corresponding request for sanctions for three separate motions in one, the Court finds that sanctions are not justified.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   April 19, 2023                                              ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.