Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV41658, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41658    Hearing Date: January 20, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On November 12, 2021, plaintiff Osbee Sangster (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Essie Guyton and Jason Guyton (collectively, “Defendant”). On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, seeking recovery for damages caused to Plaintiff’s property as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.  

On October 31, 2022, Defendants filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff alleging a claim for violation of Civil Code § 841, et seq.

On November 1, 2022, Defendant Jason Guyton filed four discovery related motions as to the following discovery requests: (1) Special Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One; (3) Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and (4) Request for Admissions, Set One. Associated with each motion, Defendant Jason Guyton seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,010.

On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed an untimely omnibus opposition to the instant motions.

On December 19, 2022, the Court continued the hearing of the instant motions from December 20, 2022 to January 20, 2022.

On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended omnibus opposition.

As of January 17, 2023, no reply papers have been filed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

A.      Compelling Initial Discovery

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).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

B.      Deeming Admissions 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).)

III.        DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, while Plaintiff’s opposition and amended opposition were untimely filed, the Court shall consider them because Defendant has not been prejudiced by this delay. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300(d).) After all, the court has broad discretion to overlook late-served papers and to resolve the matter on the merits.  (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 162, 168 [“(E)ven if the service had been untimely, the trial court was vested with discretion to overlook the defect”]; see also Bozzi v. Nordstrom (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765.)

A.   Merits

Here, Defendant Jason Guyton served the underlying discovery responses upon Plaintiff on July 29, 2022, and Plaintiff failed to provide responses by the September 3, 2022 deadline. (Motion re: Special Interrogatories at pg. 4; Boulgourjian Decl. ¶¶ 1-4, Exh. A; Motion re: Form Interrogatories at pg. 3; Boulgourjian Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, Exh. A; Motion re: Production of Document at pg. 3, Boulgourjian Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, Exh. A; Motion re: Admissions at pg. 3, Boulgourjian Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, Exh. A.)

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that, since December 14, 2022, responses have been provided to the relevant discovery requests that were propounded by Defendant Jason Guyton. (Amended Opposition at pg. 2.) Considering no reply has been filed to argue that these responses were not Code compliant or lacked verification, the Court finds that the instant motions have been rendered moot because responses were served prior to the hearing.

Accordingly, the instant motions are DENIED as moot. 

B.   Sanctions

In each motion, Defendant Jason Guyton also seeks monetary sanctions, jointly and severally, against Plaintiff and his counsel of record in the amount of $5,010.

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(d) and 2030.290(c) authorize the court to impose sanctions for the failure to respond to discovery without substantial justification. Monetary sanctions are mandatory against the losing party in a motion to compel responses to interrogatories unless the party’s failure to respond was substantially justified or other circumstances render sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c).) Also, Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) authorizes sanctions for misuse of discovery, which includes: failure to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(d), (e), (f), (g) & (h).)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c), it is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both for the failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission which necessitated the motion.

As explained in Plaintiff’s opposition, the failure to timely respond to Defendant’s discovery requests was due to Plaintiff’s loss of close family, including his father, as well as Plaintiff’s counsel’s need to focus on his wife’s health. (Amended Opposition at pg. 1-2.) Consequently, Plaintiff did not engage in a misuse of the discovery process, nor was the failure to respond to discovery willful. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal. App. 4th 1525, 1545.)

However, sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c) are mandatory. Nevertheless, the amount requested in monetary sanctions is excessive. Defendant’s counsel claims to have spent six hours in connection with one motion and anticipated to spend five hours in drafting a reply and appearing for the hearing. (Boulgourjian Decl. ¶ 8.) Upon review of the various motions, it is evident that they are nearly identical and do not concern complicated discovery issues. Thus, it is unlikely that Defendant’s counsel spent 6 hours working on one motion. Also, no reply has been filed. Therefore, monetary sanctions are reduced to $915, consisting of 1 hour at a rate of $450 per hour for drafting the motion and 0.5 hours at a rate of $450 for appearing at the hearing, and the $60 filing fee per motio ($240).

Accordingly, the request for sanctions associated with the motions to compel are DENIED. Also, the request for sanctions associated with the motion to deem admissions admitted is granted in the reduced amount of $915.00, inclusive of the filing fee.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendant Jason Guyton’s instant discovery motions are DENIED as moot. Also, the request for sanctions associated with the motions to compel are DENIED, and the request for sanctions associated with the motion to deem admissions admitted is granted in the reduced amount of $735.00, inclusive of the filing fee.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at alhdept3@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.