Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV34534, Date: 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34534    Hearing Date: January 3, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff Eliezer Molina (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Pacific Gateway Transportation, Inc. (“Pacific”) and Heliodoro Molina (“Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident occurring on November 10, 2020. On July 14, 2022, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Admissions, Set One, Requests for Production, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, by electronic mail on both defendants. (All Jackson Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. A.)

After inquiring about the responses, Plaintiff filed four (4) motions to compel responses to these discovery requests on September 9, 2022, and four (4) motions to compel responses on September 15, 2022.

The immediate motions to be addressed in this order are Plaintiff’s Motions to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted as to both Defendants, Motions to Compel Responses to Requests for Production as to both Defendants, and the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories as to Defendant Pacific. The remaining motions are scheduled to be heard on January 4^th, January 19^th, and January 20^th.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          “If a party to whom requests for admission have been directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [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, as well as for monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (C.C.P. § 2033.280(b)). 

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, if a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a response.

          “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for production or interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) 

III.      DISCUSSION

          Plaintiff served Defendants Pacific and Molina with Requests for Admissions and Requests for Production (Set One) on July 14, 2022. Additionally, Plaintiff served Defendant Pacific with Form Interrogatories (Set One) on July 14, 2022. (All Jackson Decl. ¶¶ 2-3 Ex. A.) As of the date of filing these motions (September 9, 2022 and September 15, 2022), Plaintiff had not received discovery responses from either Defendant. (All Jackson Decl. ¶ 7.)

A.   Requests for Admission

In opposition, Defendants Pacific and Molina state that they plan to have provided substantive responses to the Requests for Admission, Set One, by the time of the hearing. If the Court “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,” then the motion must be denied. (CCP § 2033.280(d); St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762.) However, no proof of verified responses has been filed with the Court.

Thus, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted the truth of the matters set forth in the Requests for Admission, Set One, as to Defendant Pacific and Defendant Molina, unless the Defendants have served verified responses prior to this hearing, in which case these motions must be denied.  

B.   Requests for Production

In their oppositions, Defendants Pacific and Molina state that they plan to have served verified, substantive responses prior to the hearing. However, because no proof of the service has been filed, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant Pacific and Defendant Molina to serve verified responses to Request for Production (Set One). Defendants are ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

C.   Form Interrogatories

In its opposition, Defendant Pacific states state that is plans to have served verified, substantive responses prior to the hearing. However, because no proof of the service has been filed, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant Pacific to serve verified responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One). Defendant Pacific is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

D.  Sanctions

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendants and their counsel of record for bringing the motions to compel responses to the Requests for Production as to both Defendants and the motion to compel responses to the Form Interrogatories as to Defendant Pacific. Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,340.00 for each of these three motions.  

Defendants argue that sanctions should not be imposed because one of their attorneys failed to provide timely answers to the discovery requests due to personal issues unrelated to the matter. (All Hitchcock Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendants also state that Plaintiff agreed, via email, to waive the sanction requests contained in each motion. (All Hitchcock Decl. ¶ 7.)

Because Plaintiff has not filed a reply disputing this agreement to waive the sanctions request, the Court declines to grant the motion for monetary sanctions. In this case, the Court will not disturb a presumably valid, undisputed agreement between the parties.

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Defendant Pacific Gateway Transportation is ordered to provide responses to the Request for Production (Set One) and Form Interrogatories (Set One) within ­­20 days of issuance of this order.

          Defendant Heliodoro Molina is ordered to provide responses to the Request for Production (Set One) within 20 days of issuance of this order.

          The Requests for Admissions (Set One) served on Defendant Pacific Gateway Transportation are deemed admitted.

          The Requests for Admissions (Set One) served on Defendant Heliodoro Molina are deemed admitted.  

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’s 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.