Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV04013, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV04013    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

          On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff Aleca Keiaeian (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in this action against Defendant Yenok Gedikyan (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle and general negligence.

          Plaintiff now moves for court orders compelling Defendant to serve verified responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set One) and deeming Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted against Defendant.  No oppositions have been filed.

 The Court additionally notes there is a hearing scheduled for a motion to disqualify counsel.  However, no motion has been filed.  Therefore, this hearing is taken off calendar. 

          On July 16, 2021, on the Court’s own motion, the Court advanced and vacated the July 30, 2021 trial.  On September 10, 2021, the Court held a trial setting conference and set the trial for August 18, 2022.  On August 18, 2022, the Court continued the trial date to November 17, 2022 and ordered all discovery deadlines to be based on the new trial date. 

          Compel Responses

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).) 

Defendant did not oppose these motions and it is undisputed that no responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests were served.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions are GRANTED and Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set One) within 10 days of the date of this order.

Deem Admitted

Where 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).)

Defendant did not oppose this motion and it does not appear that substantially compliant responses were served before the hearing.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted is GRANTED.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, 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).)  Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff’s counsel states that his hourly rate is $850 and that he has spent a total of 2.8 hours to draft each motion and anticipates spending 1.5 hours to prepare and file reply briefs to each motion, and prepare for oral argument.  Plaintiff’s counsel further states that he anticipates spending another 0.5 hours to attend the hearing.  In sum, Plaintiff’s counsel declares he expects that his total billable time on this case will be 4.8 hours and requests $4,080 for each motion. 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for sanctions is excessive and unreasonable.  An attorney of his purported esteem should have been able to prepare these simple, boilerplate motions with straightforward citations to the Code of Civil Procedure in less than 2.8 hours.  If not, an attorney with a lower billing rate should have worked on them.  Also, there were no opposition briefs to review or reply papers to prepare. 

Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Defendant in the reduced amount of $1,040.00 for 4 hours at an hourly rate of $200.00 and $240.00 in filing fees, to be paid within 10 days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.