Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: BC723462, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC723462    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On September 27, 2018, plaintiffs Michael Golden and Samantha Mondrosch (“Plaintiff”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this wrongful death and survivor action against defendants Erik Limon (“Limon”) and Jenevieve B. Hegedus (“Defendant”) arising from the death of Tracy E. Adams (“Decedent”). Plaintiffs allege that Decedent was riding her bicycle on September 6, 2017, when Limon hit her with his vehicle and drove away without rendering assistance. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant then hit Decedent a second time with her vehicle and also drove away without rendering assistance.

On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff Samantha Mondrosch served Form Interrogatories (Set Two), Special Interrogatories (Set Two), Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two), and Requests for Admission (Set Two) on Defendant.  On April 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion for an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses to her discovery requests and to deem admitted the truth of the matters in the Requests for Admissions (Set Two). 

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).) 

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 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 filed an opposition brief arguing that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because defense counsel has been unable to locate Defendant.  Defendant also argues that the Court should stay discovery because she has filed a motion for summary judgment to arguing that the parties have already entered into a valid settlement.  This motion is scheduled to be heard on December 9, 2022.  

On reply, Plaintiff argues it is unfair to stay discovery because discovery will be necessary to defend against Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  The Court agrees.  Further, while the Court is sympathetic to Defendant’s housing situation, her unfortunate circumstances cannot immunize her from the consequences of refusing to participate in the discovery process or litigation. 

However, Plaintiff should have filed four separate motions and paid 4 filing fees.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED on the condition that Plaintiff pay three additional filing fees and file proof of payment with the Court.  Proof of payment shall also be served on Defendant.  Within 20 days of service of the proof of payment, Defendant shall serve verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set Two), Special Interrogatories (Set Two), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two).  While sanctions are typically mandatory when a party fails to timely serve responses to requests for admission, Plaintiff did not request sanctions and the Court declines to impose any. 

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.