Judge Timothy B. Taylor, Case 37-2022-00034377-CU-BC-CTL 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2022-00034377-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 28, 2023

09/29/2023 01:30:00 PM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00034377-CU-BC-CTL DEHGHANI FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS MICHAEL S DUFFY SR DO INC CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 05/12/2023

Tentative Ruling on Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Discovery Dehghani v. Duffy, Case No. 2022-34377 Sept. 29, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a breach of lease case involving three spaces in the same building, formerly occupied by defendant's osteopathic practice. Plaintiff alleges defendant moved out before the end of the lease terms, thereby breaching the leases. Plaintiff seeks over $438,000.00. The complaint was filed in August of 2022, and defendant answered a subsequently filed SAC in March of 2023. ROA 11, 25.

At the continued CMC, the court set the case for trial in January of 2024. ROA 34-38.

Plaintiff has filed numerous motions to compel discovery. ROA 40-74. Four of the motions are noticed for today, but only one hearing slot was scheduled. ROA 39-56. There is no timely opposition.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. A civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.

'[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.

'California's civil discovery process aims to unearth the truth of the case, thus facilitating settlement on the basis of the mutually expected value of the suit.' Field v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 703, 705.

B. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031 et seq. and in particular Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, a party upon whom a document demand has been served has 30 days in which to respond to same. After receiving a response to a demand for production, the party making the demand may move to compel further response to the demand if a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, a representation of the party's inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a).

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2973588 36 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: DEHGHANI FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS MICHAEL S 37-2022-00034377-CU-BC-CTL C. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030 et seq. and in particular Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, a party upon whom interrogatories have been served has 30 days in which to respond to same. Failure to timely do so may result in a motion to compel response to such interrogatories as well as a monetary sanction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290.

D. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.250, a party upon whom requests for admissions have been served has 30 days in which to respond to same. In the event responses to RFAs are not timely served, the responding party waives any objections thereto (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a)), and '[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[.]' Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(b). Unless the court determines that the responding party '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,' it must order the RFAs deemed admitted. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).

E. When the Discovery Act authorizes a monetary sanction – such as Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) – the trial court must impose such a sanction unless the offending party acted with substantial justification or the imposition of the sanction would be unjust. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a). However, the Discovery Act makes it 'mandatory' for the court to impose a monetary sanction on the party whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitates a motion for deemed admissions. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c). In awarding sanctions under any of the aforementioned statutes, 'a trial court has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs...in order to reach a reasonable award.' Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.

3. Discussion and Rulings.

A. Preliminarily, as noted above, plaintiff filed four motions but only scheduled one hearing for today.

'Any party, or attorney for a party, who desires to have any demurrer, motion, ex parte application, or order to show cause set for hearing must reserve a hearing date through the online reservation system at http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov or contact the calendar clerk for the judge assigned to the case to reserve a hearing date. Failure to reserve a date for hearing will result in the demurrer, motion, ex parte application, or order to show cause hearing not being heard.' SDSC Local Rule 2.1.19(A). It appears, however, that plaintiff served all four motions on defendant and paid the filing fees for three of them.

See ROA 56. Accordingly, the court will exercise its discretion and consider the merits of all four motions. See Kapitanski v. Von's Grocery Co. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32 ('Rigid rule following is not always consistent with a court's function to see that justice is done.'); Fountain Valley Chateau Blanc Homeowner's Assn. v. Department of Veterans Affairs (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 743, 758 ('The law always favors substance over form[.]').

B. The unopposed motions are granted. The court deems the lack of opposition to the motions to be a concession as to the merits of the motions. SDSC Local Rule 2.1.19(B). Moreover, on March 22, 2023, plaintiff served form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission on defendant. (Padula Decl., ¶ 3.) No responses have been received to date.

(See id. at ¶ 7.) Accordingly, defendant must serve verified responses without objections and produce the requested documents by October 13, 2023. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a). In addition, the truth of any matters specified in the requests for admission are deemed admitted (subject, of course, to a duly noticed and properly supported motion for relief). Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(b).

C. Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is granted in the reduced amount of $987.50 for all four motions (2.5 hours at $395 per hour). The sanctions must be paid by defendant Michael S. Duffy, Sr., DO, Inc. to plaintiff Dehghani Family Limited Partnership by October 27, 2023.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2973588 36