Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 19STCV31055, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV31055    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 20, 2024                 TRIAL DATE: August 6, 2024

CASE:                         Olanna Taskey v. Benjamin Boston, et al.

CASE NO.:                 19STCV31055           

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS.

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Olanna Taskey, in pro per

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants/Cross-Complainants Benjamin Boston, Lexington Plaza LLC, Roxbury Lane, L.P., Kathy Small d/b/a L.A. Residence, and Elliot Hyland

CASE HISTORY:

·         09/03/19: Complaint filed.

·         03/06/20: Cross-Complaint filed by Kathy Small and Eliot Hyland as to Olanna Taskey

·         10/16/20: First Amended Cross-Complaint filed.

·         04/09/21: Second Amended Cross-Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a tort action for battery, trespass, and negligence. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hyland was employed by the other Defendants as a property manager, and, while so employed, sexually harassed and physically attacked Plaintiff, who was a tenant at a property owned by Defendants.

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to Special Interrogatories and to Requests for Admissions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses is DENIED. This ruling is conditioned on payment of an additional $240 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

            Defendants’ Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

            Plaintiff moves to compel responses to special interrogatories and requests for admissions propounded to Defendants.

Multiple Motions

            Plaintiff contends that she served five identical sets of interrogatories and requests for admissions, with one of each as to each of the five Defendants but moves to compel responses in one motion. Multiple motions should not be combined into a single filing.¿(See¿Govt. Code,¿§ 70617(a)(4) [setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing];¿see¿also¿Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter Group 2011)¿[“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”].)

            The Court therefore conditions its ruling on these motions on the payment of an additional $240 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

Nature of Motion

            Although Plaintiff describes her motion as a motion to compel further responses, the moving papers fulfill none of the procedural requirements for a motion of that nature. For example, the motion is not accompanied by a declaration describing the parties’ reasonable and good-faith efforts to meet and confer to informally resolve this dispute, as required by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300 (b)(1).) Nor was a separate statement provided describing the responses in dispute. (See Cal. Rules of Court 3.1345(a).) Moreover, the substantive argument offered in the papers is that Defendants failed to provide any responses to the outstanding discovery requests, not that the responses were insufficient. The remedy for a party’s failure to respond to discovery is a motion to compel responses to interrogatories, or, with respect to requests for admissions, a motion for order deeming the truth of matters stated. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290; 2033.280.) Although the motion could be plausibly construed as a motion to compel responses, nothing in the moving papers could be considered as seeking an order deeming the truth of the matters in Plaintiff’s requests for admissions. Further, as explained below, Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions were served in direct violation of the Court’s order that discovery is closed except as to discovery which Plaintiff had previously served. The Court therefore construes this motion as a Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories only.

Scope of Permissible Discovery

            On November 21, 2023, the Parties came before the Court at a Trial Setting Conference. After hearing from the Parties, the Court scheduled trial in this matter for August 6, 2024. (November 21, 2023 Minute Order.) The Court also ordered that:

Discovery remains closed, except for the following: to allow Plaintiff to propound again her written discovery that was previously served and to allow defendants' counsel to take three depositions of third-party witnesses described in plaintiff’s recently discovery responses.

Plaintiff in propria persona is ordered to re-serve the written discovery.

(Id.) Plaintiff had filed a proof of service on September 26, 2023 stating that she had served Special Interrogatories to each of the Defendants in this action via email on that date. (September 26, 2023 Proof of Service.) No corresponding proof of service was filed for the Requests for Admission on that date. Plaintiff filed proofs of service for both interrogatories and requests for admission on November 27, 2023, stating that both sets of discovery were served via email. (November 27, 2023 Proofs of Service.)

            Defendants contend in opposition that the Requests for Admissions were not authorized by the Court’s November 21, 2023 order. Defendant’s counsel states under penalty of perjury that only the Special Interrogatories had been served on Defendants before the Trial Setting Conference, and it was this discovery alone that was discussed at the November 21 hearing. (Declaration of Pamela Mozer ISO Opp. ¶¶ 3, 5-7.) When Defendant’s counsel raised this dispute with Plaintiff via email, Plaintiff responded “It actually makes you look very good in court to answer them,” without disputing that the Requests for Admissions fell outside the Court’s order. (Mozer Decl. Exh. F.) Plaintiff does not directly address Defendants’ challenge in her reply beyond asserting without evidence that the Requests for Admissions were served with the Special Interrogatories on September 26. However, none of Plaintiff’s evidence, either in the motion or the reply brief, offers any proof that the Requests for Admissions were previously served. The September 26 Proof of Service describes special interrogatories only (see Plaintiff’s Reply Exh. A.) and the subject line of Plaintiff’s October 24, 2023, email re-sending discovery to Defendants bears the subject line “SP INT for ALL DEFENDANTS.” (Id. Exh. B.) Based on the uncontroverted evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not previously serve Requests for Admissions on Defendants before November 21, 2023. Those discovery requests were therefore not authorized, and the Court will not consider them in ruling on the merits of this motion. Instead, the Court will confine its analysis to the Special Interrogatories propounded to Defendants.

Legal Standard

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, a party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc. §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.)

Analysis

            Plaintiff contends that she served special interrogatories on all Defendants via email on November 27, 2023, pursuant to the Court’s November 21, 2023 order. (See November 27, 2023 Proof of Service.) Plaintiff contends in her moving papers that no responses were received as of the date the motion had been filed. The motion is not accompanied by a separate affidavit from Plaintiff setting forth any facts under penalty of perjury. The motion is accompanied, however, by a verification that the factual averments offered in the motion are true under penalty of perjury. (See Verification.)

            In opposition, Defendants state that responses were served via email and U.S. mail on December 27, 2023, exactly 30 days after the interrogatories were served. (Mozer Decl. ¶ 12, Exh. G.) In reply, Plaintiff concedes that she received the responses on December 27, but contends that the responses are somehow invalid because the responses contained an incorrect case header and were not served by certified mail. Plaintiff cites absolutely no authority for these arguments, which would not serve as a proper challenge to the sufficiency of Defendants’ responses even if this motion complied with the requirements for a Motion to Compel Further Responses. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she is entitled to an order compelling responses to these interrogatories, be they initial or further responses.

Sanctions

            Defendants request sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $4,400 for bringing this motion without substantial justification.

            Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c); 2030.300(d).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Id.)

            Defendants base their request for sanctions on four hours of attorney time actually incurred on this opposition at $550 per hour, plus an additional four anticipated hours to review Plaintiff’s reply brief and appear at the hearing on this motion. (Mozer Decl. ¶¶ 18-20.) This fee request is unreasonably inflated on its face. It should not take a combined eight hours for an attorney with more than three decades of experience to oppose what is, in essence, a straightforward motion to compel responses. The Court therefore exercises its discretion to deny this request as unreasonably inflated. (Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal. 4th 970, 989-991.)

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses is DENIED.             This ruling is conditioned on payment of an additional $240 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

            Defendants’ Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  February 20, 2024                              ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.