Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV39890, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39890    Hearing Date: August 31, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On December 22, 2022, Plaintiff Julio Resendiz filed this action against Defendant General Motors LLC.

On March 9, 2023 Plaintiff served Defendant with Demand for Inspection and Copying, Set One, and Request for Admissions, Set One.  (Yashar Decl. ¶ 2.)  Defendant did not serve responses.

On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel written responses to Demand for Inspection and Copying, Set One and a motion to deem the truth of all matters in Request for Admissions, Set One.

On August 9, 2023, Defendant served responses.

When a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

When a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)  The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “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).)

Because Defendant has now served responses, the motions are DENIED.

The Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even where the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)  Defendant’s dilatory behavior and service of responses almost four months late—and only in response to Plaintiff’s motions—warrants sanctions.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $2,004.15 for each motion, for a total of $4,008.30.  The Court finds that a reasonable total sanction is $2,500.00, payable by Defendant’s counsel to Plaintiff within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 31st day of August 2023