Judge Timothy B. Taylor, Case 37-2022-00042789-CL-BC-CTL 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2022-00042789-CL-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 07, 2023

09/08/2023 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 - Limited Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00042789-CL-BC-CTL HASSO VS BRUFORD [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Deem Facts Admitted, 06/28/2023

Tentative Ruling on Motions to Compel Discovery and for Deemed Admissions Hasso v. Bruford, Case No. 2022-42789 Sept. 8, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a limited case. Plaintiff, an experienced lawyer, alleges that she was tricked by a custom door builder in connection with the replacement of the front door on the 'Historical Property' she uses as her home and office. The seven count complaint was filed in October of 2022. Defendants answered in January of 2023. ROA 8.

At the due course CMC, the court set the case for trial in October of 2023. ROA 14-19.

Presently, plaintiff seeks orders deeming RFAs admitted, compelling responses to form interrogatories, and compelling responses to requests for production of documents. ROA 20-27. Defendants filed opposition. ROA 28-29. Plaintiff replied. ROA 30-31. The court has reviewed the papers, and no further submissions are permitted in connection with these motions.

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 Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2990401 36 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: HASSO VS BRUFORD [IMAGED] 37-2022-00042789-CL-BC-CTL 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).

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. The motion to compel responses from defendant Artisans Du Bois is denied as moot. Verified responses have been provided. (Cooper Decl., ¶¶ 6-7; Exs. A, B.) B. The motion to compel responses from defendant Nick Bruford is denied.

With respect to the requests for admissions and form interrogatories, plaintiff's motion is moot. Verified responses have been provided. (Cooper Decl., ¶¶ 6-7; Exs. A, B.) With respect to the requests for production of documents, the motion is denied on the merits. No such discovery was served on Bruford. (Cooper Decl., ¶¶ 8-9; Exs. C, D.) C. Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is granted in the reduced amount of $120.00 ($60 filing fee for each motion). 'The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.' CRC 3.1348(a). However, plaintiff is not entitled to attorney's fees for her time spent preparing the motion. Self-represented litigants cannot recover attorney's fees as a discovery sanction.

See Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1179; Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1021. The sanctions must be paid by defendants Artisans Du Bois and Bruford, jointly and severally, to plaintiff by October 6, 2023.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2990401 36