Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22STCV09628, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09628    Hearing Date: October 5, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On March 18, 2022, Raphael Padilla (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Rite Aid Corporation (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 25 asserting a cause of action for premises liability.

On April 19, 2022, Plaintiff propounded written discovery requests on Defendant.

On April 29, 2022, Defendant filed its Answer.

On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed the following: (1) Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents; (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff’s counsel avers that she spoke telephonically with Defendant’s counsel on June 16, 2022, but that as of June 30, 2022 no discovery responses have been served. (Mots., Decls. Darbinyan, ¶ 5.)  

On Friday, August 26, 2022, Defendant filed: (1) Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Requests for Admissions, Set One; (2) Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Request for Production, Set One; (3) Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories, Set One; and (4) Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories, Set One.

On Monday, August 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a single Reply.

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; Sinaiko 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., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Defendant opposed Plaintiff’s motions on the grounds that responses were served before the hearing.  Although Defendant did not attach copies of those responses in its opposition papers, Plaintiff attached them to his reply.   Accordingly, as Plaintiff has admittedly received Defendant’s responses, Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses are DENIED as moot. 

Plaintiff may file a motion to compel a further response to challenge any objections that he deems inappropriate, or motion to compel compliance to the extent Plaintiff believes that additional documents have yet to be produced.  The Court reminds the parties that any hearing on a motion to compel further must be preceded by an informal discovery conference.  (See Seventh Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts (5/16/2022).)  The Court further reminds the parties that, as set forth in the Seventh Amended Standing Order, reserving or scheduling an IDC does not extend the time to file a Motion to Compel further, so the motions need to be timely filed, the IDC date reserved, and the motion hearing date reserved.

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).)

As stated above, Plaintiff admits he has received Defendant’s responses to his requests for admission.  Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s responses are not “substantially compliant” but does not provide an explanation with respect to Defendant’s responses to his requests for admission.  (Reply, 2:24-28.)  Defendant provided verified responses to all 34 requests for admission, even if it also asserted objections to 8 of those requests.  This is sufficient to conclude that Defendant provided substantially compliant responses.  (See St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762 [court evaluates proposed responses to RFAs in their entirety to determine “substantial compliance"].) 

Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted is DENIED.

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).)  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).)  Pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 3.1348, a court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion filed.

Defendant argues it should not be sanctioned because it claims that discovery responses were served on June 30, 2022.  However, there is no evidence showing whether these responses were served before or after Plaintiff filed these motions on June 30, 2022.  Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant opposed this motion with substantial justification or that other circumstances exist which would make the requested sanctions unjust. 

Plaintiff filed three motions even though four sets of discovery requests were at issue.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED on the condition that Plaintiff pay an additional filing fee, file a notice showing proof of payment with the Court, and serve Defendant with a copy of the notice.  Within 20 days of being served with the notice that the filing fee has been paid, Defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally, shall pay sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,140.00 for 3 hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $300.00 and $240.00 in filing fees. 

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.