Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 21STCV41050, Date: 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41050    Hearing Date: August 15, 2022    Dept: 31

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND TO DEEM ADMISSIONS ADMITTED ARE GRANTED

Background 

            On November 11, 2021, Plaintiff Jane Ramsey (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendants Barry Katz (“Katz”) and Katz Entertainment, Inc. (“Katz Entertainment”) (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting the following causes of action: 

(1)   Promissory Fraud;

(2)   Breach of Contract;

(3)   Rescission of Contract;

(4)   Fraud (Intentional Misrepresentation with Monetary Damages);

(5)   Restitution (Unjust Enrichment Relief);

(6)   Conversion;

(7)   Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

(8)   Fraud and Deceit with Constructive Trust;

(9)   Declaratory Relief;

(10)  Breach of Implied in Fact Contract;

(11)  Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and

(12)  Common Counts (Money Had and Received).

On January 18, 2022, Katz filed his answer to the Complaint. 

On May 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant discovery motions. No opposition has been filed. 

Legal Standard 

Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party...” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260(a).) The propounding party on a set of interrogatories may agree to extend the time for service beyond that 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.270.) If the propounded party does not respond in the appropriate amount of time, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) Where a party fails to timely provide a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may compel a response to its interrogatories, Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, without need to meet and confer with opposing counsel.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) Furthermore, “the party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives . . . any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . . .”  Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.           

Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, the party to whom the request for production is made shall serve the original response to the request, unless otherwise agreed to or ordered. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260(a).) A party requesting the production of documents may seek an order compelling a response when there has not been a timely response to the request for production. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300.) Moreover, where a party fails to timely respond to a production request, the delinquent party waives all objections to production and the requesting party may seek a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)  

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c), the court shall make the order deeming the truth of the matters admitted unless the responding party serves before the hearing a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Code Civ. Proc § 2033.220. Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220 requires that each answer either admits, denies or specifies that the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. The moving party is not required to meet and confer before bringing this action. (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates, 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395.) 

Discussion 

As a preliminary matter, it is noted that Plaintiff has improperly combined multiple discovery motions into a single filing, which impermissible. (Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter Group 2011) [“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”]) Plaintiff is advised to avoid this practice in the future.  Plaintiff must pay the motions filing fee and show proof of such payment at the time of hearing on these Motions. 

A.    Compelling Responses

On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on Katz. (Motion at pp. 4, 6; Ramsey Decl. ¶¶ 1-3, Exhs. A, C, D.) However, despite Plaintiff’s attempts to meet and confer, Katz has failed to serve any responses to these requests. (Motion at pp. 4, 6; Ramsey Decl. ¶¶ 3-7.) 

Because the responses to the discovery requests are more than thirty-days outstanding, the information sought is generally discoverable, and Defendants’ motion is unopposed, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to orders orders compelling responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents, without objections. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Katz to provide responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED. Katz must provide verified, code compliant responses without objections within thirty days.  

B.    Deem Admissions Admitted 

Plaintiff also requests that the court deem admitted all responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, propounded on Katz. 

On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Admissions, Set One. (Motion at pp. 4, 6; Ramsey Decl. ¶¶ 1-3, Exh. B.) However, Katz failed to respond within the 30-day deadline, and to this date, Katz has not provided any responses to these requests. (Motion at pp. 4, 6; Ramsey Decl. ¶¶ 3-7.) 

The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA admitted, “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(c).) 

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted in its entirety. 

C.    Sanctions 

Plaintiff request the Court to award monetary sanctions against Katz in the amount of $150. (Motion at pp. 6-7; Ramsey Decl. ¶ 8.)           

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 Civ. Proc. § 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. 

            Here, Katz has failed to respond to Plaintiff’s requests for discovery. Therefore, sanctions are warranted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.030(a) and 2033.280(c), and the Court finds that the requested amount is reasonable. 

            Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Katz in the amount of $150.00 

Conclusion 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Katz to provide responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED. Katz must provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections to the aforementioned discovery requests within thirty days of being served with this Order. Also, Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, is deemed admitted in their entirety. 

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Katz in the amount of $150.00 is GRANTED. Katz is ordered to tender payment to Plaintiff within thirty days of this Order. 

            Plaintiff is to give notice. 

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All masking protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.