Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV27874, Date: 2025-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27874    Hearing Date: April 28, 2025    Dept: 45

MIREYA HIDALGO et al. v. DOWNEY MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., et al.

motionS to compel discovery responses

Date of Hearing:        April 28, 2025                         Trial Date:       January 26, 2026

Department:              45                                            Case No.:        23STCV27874

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Mireya Hildalgo

Responding Party:     Defendant Downey Management Group Inc.

BACKGROUND

On November 14, 2023, Plaintiffs Mireya Hidalgo and Carlos Hidalgo filed a complaint against Defendants Downey Management Group Inc, Lakewood40, LLC George Klause as Trustee of the Arthur and Ann Klause Trust and Gaby Mariscal for premises liability, negligence/negligence per se, retaliation, violation of Civil Code section 1942.2, tortious breach of warranty of habitability, breach covenant of quiet enjoyment, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and intentional influence to vacate.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motoin to Compel Responses from Defendant Downey Management Group, Inc. to Special Interrogatories, Set One is MOOT.

Plaintiff’s Motoin to Compel Responses from Defendant Downey Management Group, Inc. to Form Interrogatories, Set One is MOOT.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Mireya Hildalgo moves the court for an order compelling Defendant Downey Management, Group, Inc. to provide a written response to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objections. Plaintiff makes the motions on the ground Defendant failed to serve a written response to the discovery requests. Plaintiff also seeks in the amount of $918.41 per motion.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve a timely response to the discovery request waives any objection to the request, including one based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (CCP §§2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.010, the propounding party may also move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (CCP § 2033.280(b).)

In opposition, Defendant contends discovery responses have now been served and therefore, the court should deny Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions. Defense counsel asserts when the discovery was owed, she was out on maternity leave and all cases were being handled by another attorney in the office. (Staton Decl. ¶3.) However, that attorney took an unexpected leave of absence and Counsel had to take on her case load as well as her own. (Staton Decl. ¶4.) Counsel did not discover the belated discovery until months later. (Staton Decl.¶9.) Counsel then worked to get the responses over without objection. (Staton Decl. ¶¶10-14.)

Counsel has failed to attach the submitted discovery responses. The parties are to confirm Plaintiff has now received the written discovery responses. As for the request for sanctions, the court DENIES the request for sanctions. These motions could have been avoided by proper communication between counsel.