Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 23STCV22469, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

On December 26, 2023, Defendant Commerce Hyundai Inc dba Commerce Mitsubishi served Plaintiff Roula Oglii aka Roula Aljabban with Request for Production (Set One), Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One); and First Set of Requests for Admission. (Mayville Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff did not provide timely responses, and Defendant agreed to extend the deadline to April 17, 2024. (Mayville Decl. ¶¶ 4-12.) Plaintiff still did not serve responses. (Mayville Decl. ¶ 13.)

On April 30, 2024, Defendant filed two motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses and one motion to deem the RFAs admitted. Defendant also requests sanctions of $4,178.00 for its attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the motions.

Defendant filed (1) a motion to compel responses to Request for Production (Set One); (2) a motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One); and (3) a motion to deem admitted the First Set of Requests for Admission.

Each set of discovery should have been filed as a separate motion, with separate filing fees and hearing reservations. Despite being scheduled as only three motions and three hearings, the total substance is that of four motions. This unfairly allows the parties to take only three hearing reservations (instead of four) and results in an inaccurate projection and accounting of the Court’s workload, inconveniencing both the Court and other litigants.

All parties are ordered not to do this again and are warned that continued action of this type may result in monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5. For any future discovery motions, the parties must file a separate motion for each set of discovery, or the Court may strike or deny the motions for being improperly filed.

A Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Payment of Additional Filing Fee is scheduled for June 12, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.

Where 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).)

In its replies, Defendant states that it received responses to Request for Production (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One) on May 15, 2024. Accordingly, the motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses are DENIED AS MOOT.

Defendant argues that the responses contain improper objections or are otherwise insufficient, but those issues are properly raised in a motion to compel further responses, not in reply to a motion to compel the initial responses.

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 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).)

Plaintiff served responses on May 15, 2024, but Defendant argues that these responses are not substantially compliant. (Reply at pp. 2-3.) For RFA Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 7, Plaintiff responded, “Responding party does not have sufficient information to either admit nor deny the matters stated in request for admission number [3, 4, 5, 7], and therefore denies said request.”

When a responding party lacks sufficient information, they “shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (c).) Plaintiff’s response is therefore not completely code-compliant. “Although [the] proposed response may not have actually complied with all statutory requirements, such actual compliance is not required where the proposed response is facially a good-faith effort to respond to RFAs in a manner that is substantially code-compliant.” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 782.) The Court finds that to be the case here, and Plaintiff’s responses are substantially compliant.

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).)

Plaintiff’s dilatory behavior and service of responses only when faced with Defendant’s motions warrants sanctions. The Court determines that sanctions are appropriately imposed against counsel, not the client, because no oppositions were filed and no explanation was provided for the failure to timely respond to discovery.

Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to pay sanctions of $4,178.00 to Defendant within 30 days.

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.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court