Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00822, Date: 2023-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00822    Hearing Date: August 24, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On January 18, 2023, Plaintiff John Le Nguyen (“Plaintiff”) served Form Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Documents and Other Tangible Things (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One) on defendant Minh Le Nguyen (“Defendant”).  Having received no responses, Plaintiff proceeded to file these motions compelling Defendant to provide verified responses without objections and to have the requests for admission deemed admitted.   Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions.  

On July 12, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on these motions to August 24, 2023.  The parties were ordered to meet and confer informally in resolving this matter.  Defendant was allowed to file an opposition and Plaintiff was allowed to file a reply brief.  However, there have been no new filings. 

          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).) 

The motions are unopposed and it is undisputed that Defendant did not timely serve responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Documents and Other Tangible Things (Set One).  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions are GRANTED and Defendant is ordered to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Documents and Other Tangible Things (Set One) within 20 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).)

The motion is unopposed and it does not appear that Defendant has served substantially compliant responses before the date of this hearing.  Therefore, the motion to deem admitted is GRANTED.

Monetary Sanctions

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); 20331.300, 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 requests $2,1000 in sanctions per motion.  This is excessive.  First, Plaintiff cannot recover expenses for the cost of meeting and conferring.  Second, drafting each motion should not have required three to four hours.  Each motion’s memorandum of points and authorities is only 3 pages long and does not require any extensive legal analysis.  Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Defendant in the reduced amount of $1,380.00 for 3 hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $400.00 and $180.00 in filing fees, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 24th day of August, 2023

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.